Burns v. Milburn

D. Nebraska

Burns v. Milburn

DecidedNovember 18, 2024

Docket8:23-cv-00053

StatusUnknown

This text of Burns v. Milburn (Burns v. Milburn) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nebraska primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Burns v. Milburn, (D. Neb. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

SHANE TAYLOR BURNS, Plaintiff, 8:23CV53 vs. NDCS MENTAL HEALTH DEPT, TED HILL, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER KRISTINA MILBURN, and JOAN RAFFETY, Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation recommending that the claims against defendant Ted Hill be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ P. (4)(m). (Filing No. 48). There are no objections to the findings and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) provides for de novo review only when a party objected to the magistrate's findings or recommendations. See Peretz v. United States, 501 U.S. 923, 939 (1991). The failure to file an objection eliminates not only the need for de novo review, but any review by the Court. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-51 (1985); United States v. Wise, 588 F.3d 531, 537 n.5 (8th Cir. 2009), see Daley v. Marriott Int'l, Inc., 415 F.3d 889, 893 (8th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 1. The Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation (Filing No. 48) are adopted. 2. Defendant Ted Hill is dismissed from this case without prejudice. Dated this 18th day of November, 2024. BY THE COURT:

Susan M. Bazis United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

SHANE TAYLOR BURNS, Plaintiff, 8:23CV53 vs. NDCS MENTAL HEALTH DEPT, TED HILL, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER KRISTINA MILBURN, and JOAN RAFFETY, Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation recommending that the claims against defendant Ted Hill be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ P. (4)(m). (Filing No. 48). There are no objections to the findings and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) provides for de novo review only when a party objected to the magistrate's findings or recommendations. See Peretz v. United States, 501 U.S. 923, 939 (1991). The failure to file an objection eliminates not only the need for de novo review, but any review by the Court. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-51 (1985); United States v. Wise, 588 F.3d 531, 537 n.5 (8th Cir. 2009), see Daley v. Marriott Int'l, Inc., 415 F.3d 889, 893 (8th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 1. The Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation (Filing No. 48) are adopted. 2. Defendant Ted Hill is dismissed from this case without prejudice. Dated this 18th day of November, 2024. BY THE COURT:

Susan M. Bazis United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Burns v. Milburn, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burns-v-milburn-ned-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack