Myers v. Kleffman
Myers v. Kleffman
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Tricia Myers, Case No. 24-CV-03890 (JMB/LIB) Plaintiff, v. ORDER Adam Kleffman, official capacity; Jane Doe, Deputy – official capacity; John Doe, Deputy – official capacity; and St. Louis County, official capacity, Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of United States Magistrate Leo I. Brisbois dated November 19, 2024. (Doc. No. 3.) The R&R recommends that the Court dismiss this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and deny the pending Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs (IFP Application) as moot. (Id. at 8.) Neither party has objected to the R&R, and the time 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. 3) is ADOPTED; 2. The IFP Application (Doc. No. 2) is DENIED as moot; and 3. The action is DISMISSED without prejudice.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: January 8, 2025 /s/ Jeffrey M. Bryan Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan United States District Court
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Tricia Myers, Case No. 24-CV-03890 (JMB/LIB) Plaintiff, v. ORDER Adam Kleffman, official capacity; Jane Doe, Deputy – official capacity; John Doe, Deputy – official capacity; and St. Louis County, official capacity, Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of United States Magistrate Leo I. Brisbois dated November 19, 2024. (Doc. No. 3.) The R&R recommends that the Court dismiss this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and deny the pending Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs (IFP Application) as moot. (Id. at 8.) Neither party has objected to the R&R, and the time 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. 3) is ADOPTED; 2. The IFP Application (Doc. No. 2) is DENIED as moot; and 3. The action is DISMISSED without prejudice.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: January 8, 2025 /s/ Jeffrey M. Bryan Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan United States District Court
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.