Myers v. United HealthCare Services, Inc.
Myers v. United HealthCare Services, Inc.
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Jennifer Myers, Civ. No. 23-2528 (PAM/ECW) Plaintiff, v. ORDER United HealthCare Services, Inc., Defendant.
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright dated March 25, 2024. (Docket No. 4). The R&R recommends dismissing this matter without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The Court has received no objections to the R&R and the time to do so has expired. See D. Minn. L.R. 72.2(b)(1) (providing that a party may file objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendations within 14 days).
This Court must review de novo any portion of an R&R to which specific objections are made, but in the absence of objections, the Court reviews the R&R only for clear error. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Minn. L.R. 72.2(b); see also Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996) (noting that district court need only review un-objected-to R&R for clear error). The Court has reviewed the R&R and finds no error, clear or otherwise, in the Magistrate Judge’s reasoning.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The R&R (Docket No. 4) is ADOPTED; and 2. This matter is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Date: April 22, 2024 s/Paul A. Magnuson Paul A. Magnuson United States District Court Judge
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Jennifer Myers, Civ. No. 23-2528 (PAM/ECW) Plaintiff, v. ORDER United HealthCare Services, Inc., Defendant.
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright dated March 25, 2024. (Docket No. 4). The R&R recommends dismissing this matter without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The Court has received no objections to the R&R and the time to do so has expired. See D. Minn. L.R. 72.2(b)(1) (providing that a party may file objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendations within 14 days).
This Court must review de novo any portion of an R&R to which specific objections are made, but in the absence of objections, the Court reviews the R&R only for clear error. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Minn. L.R. 72.2(b); see also Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996) (noting that district court need only review un-objected-to R&R for clear error). The Court has reviewed the R&R and finds no error, clear or otherwise, in the Magistrate Judge’s reasoning.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The R&R (Docket No. 4) is ADOPTED; and 2. This matter is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Date: April 22, 2024 s/Paul A. Magnuson Paul A. Magnuson United States District Court Judge
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.