Ontiveros v. Ontiveros
Ontiveros v. Ontiveros
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Tito Freddy Ontiveros, Case No. 18-cv-1916 (WMW/KMM) Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND v. RECOMMENDATION Tito Freddy Ontiveros, Defendant.
This matter is before the Court on the February 25, 2019 Report and Recommendation (R&R) of United States Magistrate Judge Katherine M. Menendez. (Dkt. 24.) Objections to the R&R have not been filed in the time period permitted.1 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.
Based on the R&R and all the files, records and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: Objections to an R&R must be specific. Objections that are not specific do not entitle a party to de novo review. See Cowherd v. Million, 380 F.3d 909, 912 (6th Cir. 2004); Bui v. U.S. Attorney’s Office, No. 15–2001, 2015 WL 6758142, at *1 (D. Minn. Nov. 5, 2015). Ontiveros has submitted several filings since the R&R was issued. (Dkts.
25-29.) Even when these documents are read liberally, no specific objection to the R&R’s conclusions is discernable. For this reason, the Court reviews the R&R for clear error. See Bui, 2015 WL 6758142, at *1.
1. The February 25, 2019 R&R, (Dkt. 24), is ADOPTED.
2. Plaintiff Tito Freddy Ontiveros’s motion for summary judgment, (Dkt. 22), is DENIED.
3. Plaintiff Tito Freddy Ontiveros’s motion to correct the record, (Dkt. 21), is DENIED AS MOOT.
4. This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: April 2, 2019 s/Wilhelmina M. Wright Wilhelmina M. Wright United States District Judge
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Tito Freddy Ontiveros, Case No. 18-cv-1916 (WMW/KMM) Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND v. RECOMMENDATION Tito Freddy Ontiveros, Defendant.
This matter is before the Court on the February 25, 2019 Report and Recommendation (R&R) of United States Magistrate Judge Katherine M. Menendez. (Dkt. 24.) Objections to the R&R have not been filed in the time period permitted.1 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.
Based on the R&R and all the files, records and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: Objections to an R&R must be specific. Objections that are not specific do not entitle a party to de novo review. See Cowherd v. Million, 380 F.3d 909, 912 (6th Cir. 2004); Bui v. U.S. Attorney’s Office, No. 15–2001, 2015 WL 6758142, at *1 (D. Minn. Nov. 5, 2015). Ontiveros has submitted several filings since the R&R was issued. (Dkts.
25-29.) Even when these documents are read liberally, no specific objection to the R&R’s conclusions is discernable. For this reason, the Court reviews the R&R for clear error. See Bui, 2015 WL 6758142, at *1.
1. The February 25, 2019 R&R, (Dkt. 24), is ADOPTED.
2. Plaintiff Tito Freddy Ontiveros’s motion for summary judgment, (Dkt. 22), is DENIED.
3. Plaintiff Tito Freddy Ontiveros’s motion to correct the record, (Dkt. 21), is DENIED AS MOOT.
4. This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: April 2, 2019 s/Wilhelmina M. Wright Wilhelmina M. Wright United States District Judge
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.