Minnie Quinn v. Elizabet Echols, et al.

N.D. Mississippi

Minnie Quinn v. Elizabet Echols, et al.

DecidedJanuary 13, 2026

Docket1:25-cv-00183

StatusUnknown

This text of Minnie Quinn v. Elizabet Echols, et al. (Minnie Quinn v. Elizabet Echols, et al.) 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

Minnie Quinn v. Elizabet Echols, et al., (N.D. Miss. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

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

MINNIE QUINN PLAINTIFF

V. NO. 1:25-CV-183-DMB-DAS

ELIZABET ECHOLS, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER

On December 29, 2025, United States Magistrate Judge David A. Sanders issued a report (“R&R”) recommending that Minnie Quinn’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis be denied and that her complaint be dismissed. Doc. #5. The R&R warned: Objections are required to be in writing and must be filed within 14 days of this date. Failure 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 accepted by the district court[.] Id. at 2. No objection to the R&R was 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 San Antonio 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 that the R&R is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law, the R&R [5] is ADOPTED as the order of the Court. Quinn’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis [2] is DENIED and this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. SO ORDERED, this 13th day of January, 2026. /s/Debra M. Brown 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 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI ABERDEEN DIVISION

MINNIE QUINN PLAINTIFF

V. NO. 1:25-CV-183-DMB-DAS

ELIZABET ECHOLS, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER

On December 29, 2025, United States Magistrate Judge David A. Sanders issued a report (“R&R”) recommending that Minnie Quinn’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis be denied and that her complaint be dismissed. Doc. #5. The R&R warned: Objections are required to be in writing and must be filed within 14 days of this date. Failure 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 accepted by the district court[.] Id. at 2. No objection to the R&R was 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 San Antonio 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 that the R&R is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law, the R&R [5] is ADOPTED as the order of the Court. Quinn’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis [2] is DENIED and this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. SO ORDERED, this 13th day of January, 2026. /s/Debra M. Brown UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Minnie Quinn v. Elizabet Echols, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/minnie-quinn-v-elizabet-echols-et-al-msnd-2026.

Opinion

V. NO. 1:25-CV-183-DMB-DAS

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack