Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law
U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, 2025

Johnson v. Sullivan

Johnson v. Sullivan
U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota · Decided August 13, 2025

Johnson v. Sullivan

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Paul Edward Johnson, Case No. 23-CV-2249 (KMM/LIB) Plaintiff, v. ORDER Ryan Sullivan, Defendant.

The above matter comes before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois, dated April 3, 2025. No objections have been filed to that R&R in the time period permitted. Indeed, it appears from the docket and the R&R that Mr. Johnson has not engaged with this litigation in many months.

The Court reviews de novo any portion of the R&R to which specific objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Minn. LR 72.2(b). In the absence of objections, the Court reviews the R&R for clear error. Nur v. Olmsted County, 563 F.

Supp. 3d 946, 949 (D. Minn. 2021) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) and Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam)). Based on the Court's careful review of the R&R and the record in this case, the Magistrate Judge committed no error, clear or otherwise, and the R&R is accepted in full.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions [ECF 42] is GRANTED and 2. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice.

Let judgment be entered accordingly.

Date: August 13, 2025 s/ Katherine M. Menendez Katherine M. Menendez United States District Judge

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Paul Edward Johnson, Case No. 23-CV-2249 (KMM/LIB) Plaintiff, v. ORDER Ryan Sullivan, Defendant.

The above matter comes before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois, dated April 3, 2025. No objections have been filed to that R&R in the time period permitted. Indeed, it appears from the docket and the R&R that Mr. Johnson has not engaged with this litigation in many months.

The Court reviews de novo any portion of the R&R to which specific objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Minn. LR 72.2(b). In the absence of objections, the Court reviews the R&R for clear error. Nur v. Olmsted County, 563 F.

Supp. 3d 946, 949 (D. Minn. 2021) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) and Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam)). Based on the Court's careful review of the R&R and the record in this case, the Magistrate Judge committed no error, clear or otherwise, and the R&R is accepted in full.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions [ECF 42] is GRANTED and 2. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice.

Let judgment be entered accordingly.

Date: August 13, 2025 s/ Katherine M. Menendez Katherine M. Menendez United States District Judge

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.

↑