Cole v. United States Marshals Service

District Court, D. Minnesota·Decided January 10, 2025·No. 0:24-cv-02148·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Victor Demitrius Cole, Civ. No. 24-2148 (PAM/JFD)

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

United States Marshals Service,

Defendant.

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty dated November 21, 2024. (Docket No. 27.) The R&R recommends denying without prejudice Plaintiff Victor Demitrius Cole’s Motion for Default Summary Judgment. Plaintiff did not file any objections to the R&R, and the time to do so has passed. D. Minn. L.R. 72.2(b)(1). This Court must review de novo any portion of an R&R to which specific objections are made, but in the absence of objections, the Court reviews the R&R only for clear error. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Minn. L.R. 72.2(b); see also Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996) (noting that district court need only review un-objected-to R&R for clear error). The Court has reviewed the R&R and finds no error, clear or otherwise, in the Magistrate Judge’s reasoning. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The R&R (Docket No. 27) is ADOPTED; and 2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Summary Judgment (Docket No. 16) is DENIED without prejudice.

Dated: January 10, 2025 s/ Paul A. Magnuson Paul A. Magnuson United States District Court Judge

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

Cole v. United States Marshals Service, (mnd 2025).

Cole v. United States Marshals Service (Cole v. United States Marshals Service) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related