Peet v. Sidney

District Court, D. Minnesota·Decided February 11, 2020·No. 0:17-cv-01870·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

John E. Peet, File No. 17-cv-1870 (ECT/TNL)

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Sue Morfit, et al.,

Defendants. ________________________________________________________________________ The Court has received the January 21, 2020 Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung. ECF No. 203. No party has objected to that Report and Recommendation, and the Court therefore reviews it for clear error. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam). Finding no clear error, and based upon all of the files, records, and proceedings in the above-captioned matter, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 203] is ACCEPTED; 2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Default for Failure to Comply with a Judge Order with Local Rule Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A) and Rule 36 Admission Sue Morfit and Mark Jones [ECF No. 155] is DENIED.

Dated: February 11, 2020 s/ Eric C. Tostrud Eric C. Tostrud United States District Court

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

Peet v. Sidney, (mnd 2020).

Peet v. Sidney (Peet v. Sidney) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related