Jackson v. Bradley M. Schaeppi Law Office PLLP
Jackson v. Bradley M. Schaeppi Law Office PLLP
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Howard G. Jackson, File No. 19-cv-01255 (ECT/DTS) Plaintiff, v. ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Bradley M. Schaeppi Law Office PLLP, Defendant. ________________________________________________________________________ The Court has received the June 20, 2019 Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz. ECF No. 3. 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 HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 3] is ACCEPTED; 2. The above-captioned action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; and 3. Plaintiff Howard G. Jackson’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs [ECF No. 2] is DENIED as MOOT.
Dated: July 9, 2019 s/ Eric C. Tostrud Eric C. Tostrud United States District Court
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Howard G. Jackson, File No. 19-cv-01255 (ECT/DTS) Plaintiff, v. ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Bradley M. Schaeppi Law Office PLLP, Defendant. ________________________________________________________________________ The Court has received the June 20, 2019 Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz. ECF No. 3. 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 HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 3] is ACCEPTED; 2. The above-captioned action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; and 3. Plaintiff Howard G. Jackson’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs [ECF No. 2] is DENIED as MOOT.
Dated: July 9, 2019 s/ Eric C. Tostrud Eric C. Tostrud United States District Court
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.