Hill v. State of Minnesota
Hill v. State of Minnesota
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Rachel Eta Hill, on behalf of B.H. and Case No. 19-cv-1794 (WMW/HB) A.E.H., Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND v. RECOMMENDATION State of Minnesota, Defendant.
This matter is before the Court on the November 19, 2019 Report and Recommendation (R&R) of United States Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer. (Dkt. 11.)
The R&R recommends dismissing Plaintiff Rachel E. Hill’s habeas petition without prejudice for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). In light of that recommendation, the R&R also recommends denying Hill’s application to proceed in district court without prepaying fees or costs. No objections to the R&R have been filed.
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 (“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, the foregoing analysis, and all the files, records and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. The November 19, 2019 R&R, (Dkt. 11), is ADOPTED.
2. Plaintiff Rachel E. Hill’s habeas petition, (Dkt. 1), is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
3. Hill’s application to proceed in district court without prepaying fees or costs, (Dkt. 2), is DENIED.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: December 10, 2019 s/Wilhelmina M. Wright Wilhelmina M. Wright United States District Judge
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Rachel Eta Hill, on behalf of B.H. and Case No. 19-cv-1794 (WMW/HB) A.E.H., Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND v. RECOMMENDATION State of Minnesota, Defendant.
This matter is before the Court on the November 19, 2019 Report and Recommendation (R&R) of United States Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer. (Dkt. 11.)
The R&R recommends dismissing Plaintiff Rachel E. Hill’s habeas petition without prejudice for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). In light of that recommendation, the R&R also recommends denying Hill’s application to proceed in district court without prepaying fees or costs. No objections to the R&R have been filed.
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 (“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, the foregoing analysis, and all the files, records and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. The November 19, 2019 R&R, (Dkt. 11), is ADOPTED.
2. Plaintiff Rachel E. Hill’s habeas petition, (Dkt. 1), is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
3. Hill’s application to proceed in district court without prepaying fees or costs, (Dkt. 2), is DENIED.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: December 10, 2019 s/Wilhelmina M. Wright Wilhelmina M. Wright United States District Judge
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.