Goldmann v. Sherburne County Sheriffs Department
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Steven Goldmann et al., Case No. 21-cv-2530 (KMM/DJF) Plaintiffs, v. ORDER Sherburne County Sheriffs Department et al., Defendants.
The above matter comes before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of United States Magistrate Judge Dulce Foster, dated November 23, 2022. No objections have been filed to that R&R in the permitted time period.
The Court reviews de novo any portion of the R&R to which specific objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Minn. LR 72.2(b). In the absence of objections, the Court reviews the R&R for clear error. Nur v. Olmsted County, 563 F. Supp. 3d 946, 949 (D. Minn. 2021) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) and Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam)). Based on the Court's careful review of the R&R and the record in this case, the Magistrate Judge committed no error, clear or otherwise.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 78] is ACCEPTED.
2. Defendants’ Motion for Fees and Costs [ECF No. 60] is DENIED.
3. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 60] is DENIED without prejudice.
Date: March 30, 2023 s/ Katherine M. Menendez Katherine M. Menendez United States District Judge
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Steven Goldmann et al., Case No. 21-cv-2530 (KMM/DJF) Plaintiffs, v. ORDER Sherburne County Sheriffs Department et al., Defendants.
The above matter comes before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of United States Magistrate Judge Dulce Foster, dated November 23, 2022. No objections have been filed to that R&R in the permitted time period.
The Court reviews de novo any portion of the R&R to which specific objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Minn. LR 72.2(b). In the absence of objections, the Court reviews the R&R for clear error. Nur v. Olmsted County, 563 F. Supp. 3d 946, 949 (D. Minn. 2021) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) and Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam)). Based on the Court's careful review of the R&R and the record in this case, the Magistrate Judge committed no error, clear or otherwise.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 78] is ACCEPTED.
2. Defendants’ Motion for Fees and Costs [ECF No. 60] is DENIED.
3. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 60] is DENIED without prejudice.
Date: March 30, 2023 s/ Katherine M. Menendez Katherine M. Menendez United States District Judge
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.