Wirth v. Burton
Wirth v. Burton
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Donald Joseph Wirth, Jr., and Nicholas File No. 24-cv-1595 (ECT/ECW) Thomas Stroeder, Plaintiffs, ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT v. AND RECOMMENDATION James Julis Burton, Jane Doe Number 1, Jane Doe Number 2, Jane Doe Number 3, Jane Doe Number 4, John Doe Number 1, John Doe Number 2, John Doe Number 3, John Doe Number 4, and John Doe Number 5, Defendants. ________________________________________________________________________ Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright issued a Report and Recommendation on June 11, 2024. ECF No. 6. No party has objected to that Report and Recommendation, and it is therefore reviewed 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. 6] is ACCEPTED; 2. The action is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; and 3. Plaintiffs’ applications to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF Nos. 4, 5] are DENIED as moot.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: July 11, 2024 s/ Eric C. Tostrud Eric C. Tostrud United States District Court
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Donald Joseph Wirth, Jr., and Nicholas File No. 24-cv-1595 (ECT/ECW) Thomas Stroeder, Plaintiffs, ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT v. AND RECOMMENDATION James Julis Burton, Jane Doe Number 1, Jane Doe Number 2, Jane Doe Number 3, Jane Doe Number 4, John Doe Number 1, John Doe Number 2, John Doe Number 3, John Doe Number 4, and John Doe Number 5, Defendants. ________________________________________________________________________ Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright issued a Report and Recommendation on June 11, 2024. ECF No. 6. No party has objected to that Report and Recommendation, and it is therefore reviewed 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. 6] is ACCEPTED; 2. The action is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; and 3. Plaintiffs’ applications to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF Nos. 4, 5] are DENIED as moot.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: July 11, 2024 s/ Eric C. Tostrud Eric C. Tostrud United States District Court
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.