Jackson v. RARY LLC
Jackson v. RARY LLC
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Nadia Jackson, Civ. No. 25-17 (PAM/DJF) Plaintiff, v. ORDER RARY LLC, d/b/a Teamwrx; John Poynter; Broadspire; Co Conduent; Obo Work First Casualty; Georgia Board of Workers Compensation; Georgia Employment Equal Opportunity; Georgia Commission on Equal Opportunity; and Terry Tollefson; Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster dated February 13, 2025. (Docket No. 4.)
The R&R recommends dismissal of this matter without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
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. 4) is ADOPTED; 2. This matter is DISMISSED without prejudice; and 3. Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Docket No. 2) is DENIED as moot.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: March 13, 2025 s/ Paul A. Magnuson Paul A. Magnuson United States District Court Judge
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Nadia Jackson, Civ. No. 25-17 (PAM/DJF) Plaintiff, v. ORDER RARY LLC, d/b/a Teamwrx; John Poynter; Broadspire; Co Conduent; Obo Work First Casualty; Georgia Board of Workers Compensation; Georgia Employment Equal Opportunity; Georgia Commission on Equal Opportunity; and Terry Tollefson; Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster dated February 13, 2025. (Docket No. 4.)
The R&R recommends dismissal of this matter without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
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. 4) is ADOPTED; 2. This matter is DISMISSED without prejudice; and 3. Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Docket No. 2) is DENIED as moot.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: March 13, 2025 s/ Paul A. Magnuson Paul A. Magnuson United States District Court Judge
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.