Frank v. State of Minnesota

U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota

Frank v. State of Minnesota

Trial Court Opinion

                 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                            
                    DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA                                


 Joshua David Frank,                                                     
                                   Case No. 23-CV-3768 (KMM/LIB)         
               Plaintiff,                                                

 v.                                          ORDER                       

 State of Minnesota; Dilworth Police                                     
 Department; Schlee, Officer –                                           
 Dilworth Police Dept. Badge 745, sued                                   
 in his or her official and individual                                   
 capacity; White Earth Tribal Police                                     
 Dept.; and Franklin Tibbets, Officer –                                  
 Tribal Police 823 – sued in his or her                                  
 official and individual capacity,                                       

                Defendants.                                              


    The above matter comes before the Court upon the Report and          
Recommendation (R&R) of United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois, dated 
February 14, 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.   This matter is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.                     
    2.   Plaintiff’s applications to proceed in forma pauperis, [ECF 2, 6], is 
         DENIED; and                                                     

    3.   Plaintiff’s motion to add supplement, [ECF 8], is DENIED as moot 

    Let Judgment Be Entered Accordingly.                                 
Date: May 13, 2024                  s/ Katherine M. Menendez             
                                   Katherine M. Menendez                 
                                   United States District Judge          

Trial Court Opinion

                 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                            
                    DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA                                


 Joshua David Frank,                                                     
                                   Case No. 23-CV-3768 (KMM/LIB)         
               Plaintiff,                                                

 v.                                          ORDER                       

 State of Minnesota; Dilworth Police                                     
 Department; Schlee, Officer –                                           
 Dilworth Police Dept. Badge 745, sued                                   
 in his or her official and individual                                   
 capacity; White Earth Tribal Police                                     
 Dept.; and Franklin Tibbets, Officer –                                  
 Tribal Police 823 – sued in his or her                                  
 official and individual capacity,                                       

                Defendants.                                              


    The above matter comes before the Court upon the Report and          
Recommendation (R&R) of United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois, dated 
February 14, 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.   This matter is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.                     
    2.   Plaintiff’s applications to proceed in forma pauperis, [ECF 2, 6], is 
         DENIED; and                                                     

    3.   Plaintiff’s motion to add supplement, [ECF 8], is DENIED as moot 

    Let Judgment Be Entered Accordingly.                                 
Date: May 13, 2024                  s/ Katherine M. Menendez             
                                   Katherine M. Menendez                 
                                   United States District Judge          

Reference

Status
Unknown