Delmark Robinson and Evelyn Robinson v. Winona Police Department; Montgomery Co. Sheriff Dept.; and City of Winona, MS

CourtDistrict Court, N.D. Mississippi
DecidedNovember 3, 2025
Docket4:25-cv-00020
StatusUnknown

This text of Delmark Robinson and Evelyn Robinson v. Winona Police Department; Montgomery Co. Sheriff Dept.; and City of Winona, MS (Delmark Robinson and Evelyn Robinson v. Winona Police Department; Montgomery Co. Sheriff Dept.; and City of Winona, MS) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Mississippi primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Delmark Robinson and Evelyn Robinson v. Winona Police Department; Montgomery Co. Sheriff Dept.; and City of Winona, MS, (N.D. Miss. 2025).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI GREENVILLE DIVISION

DELMARK ROBINSON and PLAINTIFFS EVELYN ROBINSON

V. NO. 4:25-CV-20-DMB-DAS

WINONA POLICE DEPARTMENT; MONTGOMERY CO. SHERIFF DEPT.; and CITY OF WINONA, MS DEFENDANTS

ORDER

On October 8, 2025, United States Magistrate Judge David A. Sanders issued a report (“R&R”) recommending that Winona Police Department and City of Winona be dismissed without prejudice. Doc. #24. The R&R warned that “[f]ailure to file written objections to the proposed finding and recommendations contained in this report within 14 days from the date of filing will bar an aggrieved party from challenging on appeal both the proposed factual findings and the proposed legal conclusions adopted by the district court.” Id. at PageID 95. No objections to the R&R were filed. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), “[a] judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report … to which objection is made.” “[P]lain error review applies where, as here, a party did not object to a magistrate judge’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, or recommendation to the district court despite being served with notice of the consequences of failing to object.” Ortiz v. City of S.A. Fire Dep’t, 806 F.3d 822, 825 (5th Cir. 2015) (cleaned up). “[W]here there is no objection, the Court need only determine whether the report and recommendation is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” United States v. Alaniz, 278 F. Supp. 3d 944, 948 (S.D. Tex. 2017) (citing United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989)). Because the Court reviewed the R&R for plain error and concludes the R&R is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law, the R&R [24] is ADOPTED as the order of the Court. Winona Police Department and City of Winona are DISMISSED without prejudice. SO ORDERED, this 3rd day of November, 2025.

/s/Debra M. Brown UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Delmark Robinson and Evelyn Robinson v. Winona Police Department; Montgomery Co. Sheriff Dept.; and City of Winona, MS, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/delmark-robinson-and-evelyn-robinson-v-winona-police-department-msnd-2025.