U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, 2024

Abdikarim v. Galewski

Abdikarim v. Galewski
U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota · Decided December 2, 2024
Abdikarim v. Galewski

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Zakariya Abdikarim, Case No. 24-CV-03483 (JMB/LIB) Plaintiff,

ORDER v. Christina M. Galewski, Assistant States Attorney; Marie Elberon, Ottertail States Attorney, Defendants.

Zakariya Abdikarim, Fargo, ND, self represented.

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois dated October 17, 2024. (Doc. No. 4.) The R&R recommends that Plaintiff Zakariya Abdikarim’s claims be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. (See id.) Neither party has objected to the R&R, and the time to do so has now passed. See D. Minn. L.R. 72.2(b)(1).

In the absence of timely objections, the Court reviews the R&R 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 the files, records, and proceedings in the above- captioned matter, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The R&R (Doc. No. 4) is ADOPTED.

2. The Court dismisses this action without prejudice.

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.

Dated: December 2, 2024 /s/ Jeffrey M. Bryan Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan United States District Court

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Zakariya Abdikarim, Case No. 24-CV-03483 (JMB/LIB) Plaintiff,

ORDER v. Christina M. Galewski, Assistant States Attorney; Marie Elberon, Ottertail States Attorney, Defendants.

Zakariya Abdikarim, Fargo, ND, self represented.

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois dated October 17, 2024. (Doc. No. 4.) The R&R recommends that Plaintiff Zakariya Abdikarim’s claims be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. (See id.) Neither party has objected to the R&R, and the time to do so has now passed. See D. Minn. L.R. 72.2(b)(1).

In the absence of timely objections, the Court reviews the R&R 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 the files, records, and proceedings in the above- captioned matter, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The R&R (Doc. No. 4) is ADOPTED.

2. The Court dismisses this action without prejudice.

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.

Dated: December 2, 2024 /s/ Jeffrey M. Bryan Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan United States District Court

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.