Doranti v. Kniesel
Doranti v. Kniesel
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Sarprio Doranti, Civ. No. 22-1964 (JWB/DTS) Plaintiff, v. Terry Kniesel, Ann Linkert, Cory Vargason, Kristi Wagner, Tammy ORDER ACCEPTING Shelton, Beth Anderson, Michael REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Zimmerman, Sabrina Search, Thane OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE Murphy, Frank Sansone, Rachel Broadway, Steve Sajdak, David Miles, and Benjamin Zuk, in their individual and official capacities, Defendants.
Sarprio Doranti, 1111 Hwy 73, Moose Lake, MN 55767, pro se Petitioner.
Joao C.J.G. De Medeiros, Esq., Office of the Minnesota Attorney General, counsel for Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) by United States Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz dated August 4, 2023. (Doc. No. 58.)
Plaintiff has filed an objection to the recommendation that this Court dismiss his Amended Complaint without prejudice. (Doc. No. 60.)
The Court reviews the portions of the R&R to which Plaintiff objects de novo and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Minn. LR 72.2(b)(3). When a party fails to file specific objections to an R&R, de novo review is not required. See Montgomery v. Compass Airlines, LLC, 98 F. Supp. 3d 1012, 1017 (D. Minn. 2015) (observing that objections to an R&R that “are not specific but merely repeat arguments presented to and considered by a magistrate judge are not entitled to de novo review, but rather are reviewed for clear error”). The Court reviews any aspect of an R&R to which no specific objection is made for clear error. Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note to 1983 amendment (“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.”). Because Plaintiff is pro se, his objections are entitled to liberal construction. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s objections to the August 4, 2023 R&R. Plaintiff’s objections do not identify any error of law or fact that warrant rejecting the recommendations in the R&R. And, after carefully reviewing all other portions of the R&R not specifically objected to, the Court finds that it is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. Based on that review, and in consideration of the applicable law, the Court accepts the R&R in its entirety.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff’s Objections to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 60) are OVERRULED; 2. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 58) is ACCEPTED; 3. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 35) is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 10) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
4. Plaintiff’s Motion of his Proven Evidence and not to Dismiss his Complaint (Doc. No. 44) is DENIED.
5. Plaintiff’s Motion to Move his Civil Suit Forward and not to Dismiss (Doc.
No. 54) is DENIED.
6. Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. No. 21) is DENIED.
7. Plaintiff’s Motion for Production of Documents (Doc. No. 41) is DENIED.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Date: September 11, 2023 s/ Jerry W. Blackwell JERRY W. BLACKWELL United States District Judge
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Sarprio Doranti, Civ. No. 22-1964 (JWB/DTS) Plaintiff, v. Terry Kniesel, Ann Linkert, Cory Vargason, Kristi Wagner, Tammy ORDER ACCEPTING Shelton, Beth Anderson, Michael REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Zimmerman, Sabrina Search, Thane OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE Murphy, Frank Sansone, Rachel Broadway, Steve Sajdak, David Miles, and Benjamin Zuk, in their individual and official capacities, Defendants.
Sarprio Doranti, 1111 Hwy 73, Moose Lake, MN 55767, pro se Petitioner.
Joao C.J.G. De Medeiros, Esq., Office of the Minnesota Attorney General, counsel for Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) by United States Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz dated August 4, 2023. (Doc. No. 58.)
Plaintiff has filed an objection to the recommendation that this Court dismiss his Amended Complaint without prejudice. (Doc. No. 60.)
The Court reviews the portions of the R&R to which Plaintiff objects de novo and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Minn. LR 72.2(b)(3). When a party fails to file specific objections to an R&R, de novo review is not required. See Montgomery v. Compass Airlines, LLC, 98 F. Supp. 3d 1012, 1017 (D. Minn. 2015) (observing that objections to an R&R that “are not specific but merely repeat arguments presented to and considered by a magistrate judge are not entitled to de novo review, but rather are reviewed for clear error”). The Court reviews any aspect of an R&R to which no specific objection is made for clear error. Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note to 1983 amendment (“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.”). Because Plaintiff is pro se, his objections are entitled to liberal construction. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s objections to the August 4, 2023 R&R. Plaintiff’s objections do not identify any error of law or fact that warrant rejecting the recommendations in the R&R. And, after carefully reviewing all other portions of the R&R not specifically objected to, the Court finds that it is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. Based on that review, and in consideration of the applicable law, the Court accepts the R&R in its entirety.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff’s Objections to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 60) are OVERRULED; 2. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 58) is ACCEPTED; 3. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 35) is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 10) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
4. Plaintiff’s Motion of his Proven Evidence and not to Dismiss his Complaint (Doc. No. 44) is DENIED.
5. Plaintiff’s Motion to Move his Civil Suit Forward and not to Dismiss (Doc.
No. 54) is DENIED.
6. Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. No. 21) is DENIED.
7. Plaintiff’s Motion for Production of Documents (Doc. No. 41) is DENIED.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Date: September 11, 2023 s/ Jerry W. Blackwell JERRY W. BLACKWELL United States District Judge
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.