Allison v. Southern Illinois
Allison v. Southern Illinois
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
JAMONTE ALLISON, JR., Case No. 25-cv-00728 (LMP/DLM) Plaintiff, v. ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION SOUTHERN ILLINOIS; JAMES MOORE; VICTOR LEWIS; TYREA; and NASHIUA MOORE, Defendants.
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), ECF No. 4, of United States Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko, which recommends dismissing Plaintiff Jamonte Allison Jr.’s Complaint, ECF No. 1, without prejudice and denying Allison’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs, ECF No. 2, as well as his motion to appoint counsel, ECF No. 3, as moot. No objections have been filed to the R&R in the time period permitted, 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 R&R (ECF No. 4) is ADOPTED; 2. Allison’s complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice; 3. Allison’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is DENIED as moot; and 4. Allison’s motion to appoint counsel (ECF No. 4) is DENIED as moot.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: April 10, 2025 s/Laura M. Provinzino Laura M. Provinzino United States District Judge
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
JAMONTE ALLISON, JR., Case No. 25-cv-00728 (LMP/DLM) Plaintiff, v. ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION SOUTHERN ILLINOIS; JAMES MOORE; VICTOR LEWIS; TYREA; and NASHIUA MOORE, Defendants.
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), ECF No. 4, of United States Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko, which recommends dismissing Plaintiff Jamonte Allison Jr.’s Complaint, ECF No. 1, without prejudice and denying Allison’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs, ECF No. 2, as well as his motion to appoint counsel, ECF No. 3, as moot. No objections have been filed to the R&R in the time period permitted, 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 R&R (ECF No. 4) is ADOPTED; 2. Allison’s complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice; 3. Allison’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is DENIED as moot; and 4. Allison’s motion to appoint counsel (ECF No. 4) is DENIED as moot.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: April 10, 2025 s/Laura M. Provinzino Laura M. Provinzino United States District Judge
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.