Colvin v. Ellison
Colvin v. Ellison
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Brenda Calloway Colvin, File No. 19-cv-2479 (ECT/BRT) Plaintiff, v. ORDER Keith Ellison, Rebecca Lucero, Jodi Harpstead, John Harrington, Staci Brean, Unnamed Adjoiner (the Director of Hennepin County Child Protection Services), Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Education, and Melissa Jacobsen, Defendants. ________________________________________________________________________ The Court has received the December 12, 2019 Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson. ECF No. 7. 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. 7] is ACCEPTED; 2. Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to prosecute; and 3. Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees [ECF No. 2] is DENIED AS MOOT.
Dated: January 13, 2020 s/ Eric C. Tostrud
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Brenda Calloway Colvin, File No. 19-cv-2479 (ECT/BRT) Plaintiff, v. ORDER Keith Ellison, Rebecca Lucero, Jodi Harpstead, John Harrington, Staci Brean, Unnamed Adjoiner (the Director of Hennepin County Child Protection Services), Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Education, and Melissa Jacobsen, Defendants. ________________________________________________________________________ The Court has received the December 12, 2019 Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson. ECF No. 7. 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. 7] is ACCEPTED; 2. Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to prosecute; and 3. Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees [ECF No. 2] is DENIED AS MOOT.
Dated: January 13, 2020 s/ Eric C. Tostrud
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.