McBROOM v. MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 15-2791 (PAM/SER). (2016)
Court: District Court, D. Minnesota
Number: infdco20160309g78
Visitors: 20
Filed: Mar. 08, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 08, 2016
Summary: ORDER PAUL A. MAGNUSON , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau dated November 30, 2015 (Docket No. 29). In the R&R, Magistrate Judge Rau recommends the denial of Plaintiff's Motion for Good-Time Credits and his Motion requesting expedited relief regarding his good-time credits, because Plaintiff has not exhausted his remedies with respect to the issue of his lost goodtime credits. On December 30, 20
Summary: ORDER PAUL A. MAGNUSON , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau dated November 30, 2015 (Docket No. 29). In the R&R, Magistrate Judge Rau recommends the denial of Plaintiff's Motion for Good-Time Credits and his Motion requesting expedited relief regarding his good-time credits, because Plaintiff has not exhausted his remedies with respect to the issue of his lost goodtime credits. On December 30, 201..
More
ORDER
PAUL A. MAGNUSON, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau dated November 30, 2015 (Docket No. 29). In the R&R, Magistrate Judge Rau recommends the denial of Plaintiff's Motion for Good-Time Credits and his Motion requesting expedited relief regarding his good-time credits, because Plaintiff has not exhausted his remedies with respect to the issue of his lost goodtime credits.
On December 30, 2015, Plaintiff wrote to the Court regarding his request for additional copying capacity at the correctional facility. (Docket No. 39.) Plaintiff included in that letter a statement that he was withdrawing his request to challenge the R&R because he anticipated a state-court ruling on that issue in the near future.
Given Plaintiff's statement that he does not object to the R&R, the Court will adopt the R&R. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The R&R (Docket No. 29) is ADOPTED;
2. Plaintiff's Motion for Good-Time Credits (Docket No. 4) is DENIED without prejudice; and
3. Plaintiff's Motion for Expedited Ruling (Docket No. 18) is DENIED as moot.
Source: Leagle
