Johnson v. Office of the Hennepin County Public Defender
Johnson v. Office of the Hennepin County Public Defender
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Michael Alfred Johnson, Civ. No. 23-100 (PAM/JFD) Plaintiff, v. ORDER
Office of the Hennepin County Public Defender, Defendant.
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty dated March 23, 2023 (Docket No. 9). The R&R recommends dismissing this matter without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff Michael Johnson did not file any objections to the R&R, and the time to do so is now past.
D. Minn. L.R. 72.2(b)(1).
This Court must review de novo any portion of an R&R to which specific objections are made, but in the absence of objections, the Court reviews the R&R only for clear error. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Minn. L.R. 72.2(b); see also Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996) (noting that district court need only review un-objected-to R&R for clear error). The Court has reviewed the R&R and finds no error, clear or otherwise, in the Magistrate Judge’s reasoning.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The R&R (Docket No. 9) is ADOPTED; and 2. The Complaint (Docket No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. s/Paul A. Magnuson Dated: April 21, 2023 Paul A. Magnuson United States District Court Judge
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Michael Alfred Johnson, Civ. No. 23-100 (PAM/JFD) Plaintiff, v. ORDER
Office of the Hennepin County Public Defender, Defendant.
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty dated March 23, 2023 (Docket No. 9). The R&R recommends dismissing this matter without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff Michael Johnson did not file any objections to the R&R, and the time to do so is now past.
D. Minn. L.R. 72.2(b)(1).
This Court must review de novo any portion of an R&R to which specific objections are made, but in the absence of objections, the Court reviews the R&R only for clear error. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Minn. L.R. 72.2(b); see also Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996) (noting that district court need only review un-objected-to R&R for clear error). The Court has reviewed the R&R and finds no error, clear or otherwise, in the Magistrate Judge’s reasoning.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The R&R (Docket No. 9) is ADOPTED; and 2. The Complaint (Docket No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. s/Paul A. Magnuson Dated: April 21, 2023 Paul A. Magnuson United States District Court Judge
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.