Woods v. State of Minnesota Corporate Courts
Woods v. State of Minnesota Corporate Courts
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Alan Woods, File No. 23-cv-1544 (ECT/ECW) Petitioner, v. ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION State of Minnesota Corporate Courts, Respondent. ________________________________________________________________________ Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright issued a Report and Recommendation on May 30, 2023. ECF No. 4. No party has objected to that Report and Recommendation, and it is therefore reviewed for clear error.1 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. 4] is ACCEPTED; 2. Petitioner’s applications to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF Nos. 2, 7] are DENIED as moot; and
1 After the Report and Recommendation was filed, the Court received an amended petition [ECF No. 6] and an additional application to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 7]. These new filings are not sufficiently different than the originals, and the reasoning of the Report and Recommendation still applies.
3. This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: July 13, 2023 s/ Eric C. Tostrud Eric C. Tostrud United States District Court
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Alan Woods, File No. 23-cv-1544 (ECT/ECW) Petitioner, v. ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION State of Minnesota Corporate Courts, Respondent. ________________________________________________________________________ Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright issued a Report and Recommendation on May 30, 2023. ECF No. 4. No party has objected to that Report and Recommendation, and it is therefore reviewed for clear error.1 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. 4] is ACCEPTED; 2. Petitioner’s applications to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF Nos. 2, 7] are DENIED as moot; and
1 After the Report and Recommendation was filed, the Court received an amended petition [ECF No. 6] and an additional application to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 7]. These new filings are not sufficiently different than the originals, and the reasoning of the Report and Recommendation still applies.
3. This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: July 13, 2023 s/ Eric C. Tostrud Eric C. Tostrud United States District Court
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.