Nelson v. Fenix International Limited, Ltd
Nelson v. Fenix International Limited, Ltd
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Damien Lashaun Nelson, File No. 24-cv-3980 (ECT/JFD) Plaintiff, v. ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Fenix International Limited, Ltd, Onlyfans.com, and Shea Leann Lachman Toombs, Defendants. ________________________________________________________________________ Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty issued a Report and Recommendation on February 3, 2025. ECF No. 11. No party has objected to that Report and Recommendation, and it is therefore reviewed for clear error.1 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 all the files, records, and proceedings in the above-captioned matter, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 11] is ACCEPTED; 2. Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis [ECF No. 2] is DENIED AS MOOT; and 3. Plaintiff is directed to pay the unpaid balance ($257.84) of the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action in the manner prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2), and the Although Plaintiff’s initial payment of the partial filing fee was returned for insufficient funds, he subsequently submitted payment of $92.16 on February 26, 2025.
ECF Nos. 10, 12. The timing of the payment does alter the Court’s decision.
Clerk of Court is directed to provide notice of this requirement to the authorities at the institution where Plaintiff is confined.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: March 17, 2025 s/ Eric C. Tostrud Eric C. Tostrud United States District Court
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Damien Lashaun Nelson, File No. 24-cv-3980 (ECT/JFD) Plaintiff, v. ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Fenix International Limited, Ltd, Onlyfans.com, and Shea Leann Lachman Toombs, Defendants. ________________________________________________________________________ Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty issued a Report and Recommendation on February 3, 2025. ECF No. 11. No party has objected to that Report and Recommendation, and it is therefore reviewed for clear error.1 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 all the files, records, and proceedings in the above-captioned matter, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 11] is ACCEPTED; 2. Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis [ECF No. 2] is DENIED AS MOOT; and 3. Plaintiff is directed to pay the unpaid balance ($257.84) of the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action in the manner prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2), and the Although Plaintiff’s initial payment of the partial filing fee was returned for insufficient funds, he subsequently submitted payment of $92.16 on February 26, 2025.
ECF Nos. 10, 12. The timing of the payment does alter the Court’s decision.
Clerk of Court is directed to provide notice of this requirement to the authorities at the institution where Plaintiff is confined.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: March 17, 2025 s/ Eric C. Tostrud Eric C. Tostrud United States District Court
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.