Goldmann v. Sherburne County Sheriffs Department

U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota

Goldmann v. Sherburne County Sheriffs Department

Trial Court Opinion

                 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                            
                    DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA                                


 Steven Goldmann et al.,                                                 
                                   Case No. 21-cv-2530 (KMM/DJF)         
               Plaintiff,                                                

 v.                                          ORDER                       

 Sherburne County Sheriffs Department                                    
 et al.,                                                                 

                Defendants.                                              


    The above matter comes before the Court upon the Report and          
Recommendation (R&R) of United States Magistrate Dulce J. Foster, dated   
September 17, 2024.  No objections have been filed to that R&R in the time period 
permitted.                                                                
    The Court reviews de novo any portion of the R&R to which specific   
objections are made. 
28 U.S.C. § 636
(b)(1); D. Minn. LR 72.2(b). In the absence of 
objections, the Court reviews the R&R for clear error. Nur v. Olmsted County, 
563 F. Supp. 3d 946
, 949 (D. Minn. 2021) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) and Grinder v. Gammon, 
73 F.3d 793, 795
 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam)). Based on the Court's careful review of 
the R&R and the record in this case, the Magistrate Judge committed no error, clear 
or otherwise, and the R&R is accepted in full.                            
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:                                                
1.  Plaintiff Romelle Smith’s case is severed from this action and the Proposed 
  Amended Complaint [ECF 160-1] shall be docketed as the operative complaint in 
  the new action;                                                        

2.  Plaintiff Romelle Smith’s claims shall relate back to November 18, 2021, the date 
  that the original complaint in this matter [ECF 1] was filed;          

3.  The remaining plaintiffs’ claims are DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to 
  prosecute;                                                             

4.  Upon severance of Mr. Smith’s action and dismissal of the remaining Plaintiffs’ 
  claims, Plaintiffs’ Counsel—Nicholas Ratkowski and the Contreras Edin law 
  firm—shall be withdrawn from both this action and Mr. Smith’s severed action;  

5.  The Clerk’s Office shall mail Mr. Smith a copy of this Order, the new case 
  number, and an application to proceed in forma pauperis status; and    

6.  This case is closed.                                                  


Date: December 13, 2024             s/ Katherine M. Menendez             
                                   Katherine M. Menendez                 
                                   United States District Judge          

Trial Court Opinion

                 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                            
                    DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA                                


 Steven Goldmann et al.,                                                 
                                   Case No. 21-cv-2530 (KMM/DJF)         
               Plaintiff,                                                

 v.                                          ORDER                       

 Sherburne County Sheriffs Department                                    
 et al.,                                                                 

                Defendants.                                              


    The above matter comes before the Court upon the Report and          
Recommendation (R&R) of United States Magistrate Dulce J. Foster, dated   
September 17, 2024.  No objections have been filed to that R&R in the time period 
permitted.                                                                
    The Court reviews de novo any portion of the R&R to which specific   
objections are made. 
28 U.S.C. § 636
(b)(1); D. Minn. LR 72.2(b). In the absence of 
objections, the Court reviews the R&R for clear error. Nur v. Olmsted County, 
563 F. Supp. 3d 946
, 949 (D. Minn. 2021) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) and Grinder v. Gammon, 
73 F.3d 793, 795
 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam)). Based on the Court's careful review of 
the R&R and the record in this case, the Magistrate Judge committed no error, clear 
or otherwise, and the R&R is accepted in full.                            
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:                                                
1.  Plaintiff Romelle Smith’s case is severed from this action and the Proposed 
  Amended Complaint [ECF 160-1] shall be docketed as the operative complaint in 
  the new action;                                                        

2.  Plaintiff Romelle Smith’s claims shall relate back to November 18, 2021, the date 
  that the original complaint in this matter [ECF 1] was filed;          

3.  The remaining plaintiffs’ claims are DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to 
  prosecute;                                                             

4.  Upon severance of Mr. Smith’s action and dismissal of the remaining Plaintiffs’ 
  claims, Plaintiffs’ Counsel—Nicholas Ratkowski and the Contreras Edin law 
  firm—shall be withdrawn from both this action and Mr. Smith’s severed action;  

5.  The Clerk’s Office shall mail Mr. Smith a copy of this Order, the new case 
  number, and an application to proceed in forma pauperis status; and    

6.  This case is closed.                                                  


Date: December 13, 2024             s/ Katherine M. Menendez             
                                   Katherine M. Menendez                 
                                   United States District Judge          

Reference

Status
Unknown