STARMAC, INC. v. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, 12-3055 (JNE/FLN). (2014)
Court: District Court, D. Minnesota
Number: infdco20140902g48
Visitors: 7
Filed: Aug. 29, 2014
Latest Update: Aug. 29, 2014
Summary: ORDER JOAN N. ERICKSEN, District Judge. In May 2014, Richard Nelson filed a chapter 7 bankruptcy case. The next month, Plaintiffs' counsel moved to withdraw without substitution. See D. Minn. LR 83.7(c). In July 2014, the Honorable Franklin L. Noel, United States Magistrate Judge, granted the motion to withdraw without substitution, noted that a corporation may not appear pro se, and stated that the action would be dismissed if the bankruptcy trustee declined to appear in this case. The bank
Summary: ORDER JOAN N. ERICKSEN, District Judge. In May 2014, Richard Nelson filed a chapter 7 bankruptcy case. The next month, Plaintiffs' counsel moved to withdraw without substitution. See D. Minn. LR 83.7(c). In July 2014, the Honorable Franklin L. Noel, United States Magistrate Judge, granted the motion to withdraw without substitution, noted that a corporation may not appear pro se, and stated that the action would be dismissed if the bankruptcy trustee declined to appear in this case. The bankr..
More
ORDER
JOAN N. ERICKSEN, District Judge.
In May 2014, Richard Nelson filed a chapter 7 bankruptcy case. The next month, Plaintiffs' counsel moved to withdraw without substitution. See D. Minn. LR 83.7(c). In July 2014, the Honorable Franklin L. Noel, United States Magistrate Judge, granted the motion to withdraw without substitution, noted that a corporation may not appear pro se, and stated that the action would be dismissed if the bankruptcy trustee declined to appear in this case. The bankruptcy trustee declined to appear in this case. In August 2014, the magistrate judge recommended that the action be dismissed. No objection to the Report and Recommendation has been filed. Having conducted a de novo review of the record, the Court accepts the recommendation to dismiss the action. See D. Minn. LR 72.2(b). The Court dismisses the action without prejudice. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Source: Leagle
