Latimer v. Schnell
Latimer v. Schnell
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Mark Latimer, Case No. 23-CV-00190 (JMB/SGE) Plaintiff, v. ORDER Paul Schnell and William Bolin, Defendants.
Mark Latimer, Stillwater, MN, self-represented Plaintiff.
Bradley Simon, Minnesota Attorney General’s Office, St. Paul, MN, for Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of United States Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins dated January 29, 2025, which recommends granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 33) and denying Plaintiff’s motion to move forward (Doc. No. 41) and motion to appoint counsel (Doc. No. 43) as moot. (Doc. No. 51.) Neither party has objected to the R&R, and the time to 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 on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The R&R (Doc. No. 51) is ADOPTED; 2. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 33) is GRANTED; 3. Plaintiff’s Motion to Move Forward (Doc. No. 41) and Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. No. 43) are DENIED AS MOOT; and 4. The matter is DISMISSED with prejudice.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: February 28, 2025 /s/ Jeffrey M. Bryan Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan United States District Court
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Mark Latimer, Case No. 23-CV-00190 (JMB/SGE) Plaintiff, v. ORDER Paul Schnell and William Bolin, Defendants.
Mark Latimer, Stillwater, MN, self-represented Plaintiff.
Bradley Simon, Minnesota Attorney General’s Office, St. Paul, MN, for Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of United States Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins dated January 29, 2025, which recommends granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 33) and denying Plaintiff’s motion to move forward (Doc. No. 41) and motion to appoint counsel (Doc. No. 43) as moot. (Doc. No. 51.) Neither party has objected to the R&R, and the time to 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 on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The R&R (Doc. No. 51) is ADOPTED; 2. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 33) is GRANTED; 3. Plaintiff’s Motion to Move Forward (Doc. No. 41) and Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. No. 43) are DENIED AS MOOT; and 4. The matter is DISMISSED with prejudice.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: February 28, 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.