Gozo v. Skillet Inc.

U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota

Gozo v. Skillet Inc.

Trial Court Opinion

             UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                            
                DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA                                

Makusha Gozo,                              Civ. No. 24-1193 (PAM/JFD)     

               Plaintiff,                                            

v.                                                        ORDER           

Skillet Kitchen, Inc., Eric Tollefson,                                    
Kandiyohi County, Alejandro Mayorkas,                                     
the City of Willmar, the State of Minnesota,                              
U.S Department of Homeland Security, and                                  
Tim Walz,                                                                 

               Defendants.                                           

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of 
United States Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty dated May 13, 2024.  (Docket No. 20).  
The R&R recommends denying Plaintiff Makusha Gozo’s various motions—“Motion for 
42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) Exhaustion” (Docket No. 3), “Emergency Motion for Injunctive or 
Declaratory Relief” (Docket No. 5), and two Motions seeking to proceed in forma pauperis 
(“IFP”) in this matter (Docket Nos. 7, 15)—and dismissing this matter in its entirety.  
Plaintiff has not objected to the R&R and the time to do so has passed.  D. Minn. L.R. 
72.2(b)(1).                                                               
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. 20) is ADOPTED;                             
2.   Plaintiff’s IFP Applications (Docket Nos. 7, 15) are DENIED as moot;  
3.   Plaintiff’s Motion for Exhaustion (Docket No. 3) and Motion for Injunctive 
     or Declaratory Relief (Docket No. 5) are DENIED as moot; and    
4.   This matter is DISMISSED without prejudice in its entirety.     

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.                                      


Date:      June 11, 2024                                                  
                                     s/Paul A. Magnuson              
                              Paul A. Magnuson                       
                              United States District Court Judge     

Trial Court Opinion

             UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                            
                DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA                                

Makusha Gozo,                              Civ. No. 24-1193 (PAM/JFD)     

               Plaintiff,                                            

v.                                                        ORDER           

Skillet Kitchen, Inc., Eric Tollefson,                                    
Kandiyohi County, Alejandro Mayorkas,                                     
the City of Willmar, the State of Minnesota,                              
U.S Department of Homeland Security, and                                  
Tim Walz,                                                                 

               Defendants.                                           

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of 
United States Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty dated May 13, 2024.  (Docket No. 20).  
The R&R recommends denying Plaintiff Makusha Gozo’s various motions—“Motion for 
42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) Exhaustion” (Docket No. 3), “Emergency Motion for Injunctive or 
Declaratory Relief” (Docket No. 5), and two Motions seeking to proceed in forma pauperis 
(“IFP”) in this matter (Docket Nos. 7, 15)—and dismissing this matter in its entirety.  
Plaintiff has not objected to the R&R and the time to do so has passed.  D. Minn. L.R. 
72.2(b)(1).                                                               
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. 20) is ADOPTED;                             
2.   Plaintiff’s IFP Applications (Docket Nos. 7, 15) are DENIED as moot;  
3.   Plaintiff’s Motion for Exhaustion (Docket No. 3) and Motion for Injunctive 
     or Declaratory Relief (Docket No. 5) are DENIED as moot; and    
4.   This matter is DISMISSED without prejudice in its entirety.     

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.                                      


Date:      June 11, 2024                                                  
                                     s/Paul A. Magnuson              
                              Paul A. Magnuson                       
                              United States District Court Judge     

Reference

Status
Unknown