Gilmore v. Martin County Sheriff Dept.

D. Minnesota

Gilmore v. Martin County Sheriff Dept.

DecidedAugust 16, 2019

Docket0:19-cv-00141

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

Gilmore v. Martin County Sheriff Dept., (mnd 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Christopher John Gilmore, Case No. 19-cv-0141 (WMW/ECW)

Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND v. RECOMMENDATION

Martin County Sheriff Dept. et al.,

Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on the July 12, 2019 Report and Recommendation (R&R) of United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright. (Dkt. 40.) The R&R recommends denying Plaintiff Christopher John Gilmore’s motion for a temporary restraining order, motions for summary judgment and for immediate summary judgment, and motion for an order of prisoner release. Timely objections to the R&R have not been filed. In the absence of timely objections, this Court reviews an R&R for clear error. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note to 1983 amendment (“When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”); Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam). Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds no clear error.1

1 Defendants Officer Jaime Bleess, Fairmont Police Dept., City of Fairmont, and Debbie Foster have made an appearance in this case. To the extent that Defendants’ appearance undermines the R&R’s conclusion that the Court does not have jurisdiction to render a judgment over these Defendants, see Sieg v. Karnes, 693 F.2d 803, 807 (8th Cir. Based on the R&R and all the files, records and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. The July 12, 2019 R&R, (Dkt. 40), is ADOPTED.

2. Plaintiff Christopher John Gilmore’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, (Dkt. 3), is DENIED. 3. Gilmore’s Motion for Summary Judgment, (Dkt. 6), is DENIED as premature. 4. Gilmore’s Motion for Order of Prisoner Release, (Dkt. 10), is DENIED.

5. Gilmore’s Motion for Immediate Summary Judgment, (Dkt. 20), is DENIED as premature.

Dated: August 16, 2019 s/Wilhelmina M. Wright Wilhelmina M. Wright United States District Judge

1982), Gilmore’s two motions for summary judgment are nonetheless denied as premature because genuine issues of material fact remain.

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Christopher John Gilmore, Case No. 19-cv-0141 (WMW/ECW)

Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND v. RECOMMENDATION

Martin County Sheriff Dept. et al.,

Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on the July 12, 2019 Report and Recommendation (R&R) of United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright. (Dkt. 40.) The R&R recommends denying Plaintiff Christopher John Gilmore’s motion for a temporary restraining order, motions for summary judgment and for immediate summary judgment, and motion for an order of prisoner release. Timely objections to the R&R have not been filed. In the absence of timely objections, this Court reviews an R&R for clear error. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note to 1983 amendment (“When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”); Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam). Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds no clear error.1

1 Defendants Officer Jaime Bleess, Fairmont Police Dept., City of Fairmont, and Debbie Foster have made an appearance in this case. To the extent that Defendants’ appearance undermines the R&R’s conclusion that the Court does not have jurisdiction to render a judgment over these Defendants, see Sieg v. Karnes, 693 F.2d 803, 807 (8th Cir. Based on the R&R and all the files, records and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. The July 12, 2019 R&R, (Dkt. 40), is ADOPTED.

2. Plaintiff Christopher John Gilmore’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, (Dkt. 3), is DENIED. 3. Gilmore’s Motion for Summary Judgment, (Dkt. 6), is DENIED as premature. 4. Gilmore’s Motion for Order of Prisoner Release, (Dkt. 10), is DENIED.

5. Gilmore’s Motion for Immediate Summary Judgment, (Dkt. 20), is DENIED as premature.

Dated: August 16, 2019 s/Wilhelmina M. Wright Wilhelmina M. Wright United States District Judge

1982), Gilmore’s two motions for summary judgment are nonetheless denied as premature because genuine issues of material fact remain.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Gilmore v. Martin County Sheriff Dept., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gilmore-v-martin-county-sheriff-dept-mnd-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack