Miles v. Johnston
Miles v. Johnston
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Gordon Miles, File No. 24-cv-1012 (ECT/ECW) Plaintiff, v. ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Nancy Johnston, Nancy Stacken, Courtney Menton, David Miles, Kristen Sherlock, Sarah McDowell, Mike Messenger, Timothy Petersen, Justin Tuchek, Jacob Davis, Kevin Schleret, Christopher Vanderpool, Katy Porter, John Does, and Jane Does, each in their official and individual capacities, Defendants. ________________________________________________________________________ Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright issued an Order and Report and Recommendation dated December 17, 2024. ECF No. 48. No party has objected to that Order and Report and Recommendation, and it is therefore reviewed 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 of the files, records, and proceedings in the above-captioned matter, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 48] is ACCEPTED in full.
2. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 13] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
3. Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction [ECF No. 24] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: January 10, 2025 s/ Eric C. Tostrud Eric C. Tostrud United States District Court
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Gordon Miles, File No. 24-cv-1012 (ECT/ECW) Plaintiff, v. ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Nancy Johnston, Nancy Stacken, Courtney Menton, David Miles, Kristen Sherlock, Sarah McDowell, Mike Messenger, Timothy Petersen, Justin Tuchek, Jacob Davis, Kevin Schleret, Christopher Vanderpool, Katy Porter, John Does, and Jane Does, each in their official and individual capacities, Defendants. ________________________________________________________________________ Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright issued an Order and Report and Recommendation dated December 17, 2024. ECF No. 48. No party has objected to that Order and Report and Recommendation, and it is therefore reviewed 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 of the files, records, and proceedings in the above-captioned matter, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 48] is ACCEPTED in full.
2. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 13] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
3. Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction [ECF No. 24] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: January 10, 2025 s/ Eric C. Tostrud Eric C. Tostrud United States District Court
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.