Burks v. MN Disability Law Center
Burks v. MN Disability Law Center
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Robert Burks, Case No. 19-cv-1448 (WMW/DTS) Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION MN Disability Law Center, Defendant.
This matter is before the Court on the October 4, 2019 Report and Recommendation (R&R) of United States Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz. (Dkt. 11.) The R&R recommends dismissing Plaintiff Robert Burks’s complaint without prejudice for failure to prosecute, Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), including Burks’s failure to pay the filing fee. Objections to the R&R have not been filed in the time period permitted.
In the absence of timely objections, the Court reviews an R&R for clear error. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note (“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 carefully performed this review, the Court finds no clear error and adopts the R&R. Based on the R&R and all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. The October 4, 2019 R&R, (Dkt. 11), is ADOPTED.
2. Plaintiff Robert Burks’s complaint, (Dkt. 1), is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: November 15, 2019 s/Wilhelmina M. Wright Wilhelmina M. Wright United States District Judge
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Robert Burks, Case No. 19-cv-1448 (WMW/DTS) Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION MN Disability Law Center, Defendant.
This matter is before the Court on the October 4, 2019 Report and Recommendation (R&R) of United States Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz. (Dkt. 11.) The R&R recommends dismissing Plaintiff Robert Burks’s complaint without prejudice for failure to prosecute, Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), including Burks’s failure to pay the filing fee. Objections to the R&R have not been filed in the time period permitted.
In the absence of timely objections, the Court reviews an R&R for clear error. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note (“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 carefully performed this review, the Court finds no clear error and adopts the R&R. Based on the R&R and all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. The October 4, 2019 R&R, (Dkt. 11), is ADOPTED.
2. Plaintiff Robert Burks’s complaint, (Dkt. 1), is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: November 15, 2019 s/Wilhelmina M. Wright Wilhelmina M. Wright United States District Judge
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.