Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Gilmore v. Martin County Sheriff Dept., 19-cv-0141 (WMW/ECW). (2019)

Court: District Court, D. Minnesota Number: infdco20190819c24 Visitors: 5
Filed: Aug. 16, 2019
Latest Update: Aug. 16, 2019
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION WILHELMINA M. WRIGHT , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on the July 12, 2019 Report and Recommendation (R&R) of United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright. (Dkt. 40.) The R&R recommends denying Plaintiff Christopher John Gilmore's motion for a temporary restraining order, motions for summary judgment and for immediate summary judgment, and motion for an order of prisoner release. Timely objections to the R&R have not been f
More

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on the July 12, 2019 Report and Recommendation (R&R) of United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright. (Dkt. 40.) The R&R recommends denying Plaintiff Christopher John Gilmore's motion for a temporary restraining order, motions for summary judgment and for immediate summary judgment, and motion for an order of prisoner release. Timely objections to the R&R have not been filed. In the absence of timely objections, this Court reviews an R&R for clear error. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee's note to 1983 amendment ("When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation."); Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam). Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds no clear error.1

Based on the R&R and all the files, records and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. The July 12, 2019 R&R, (Dkt. 40), is ADOPTED.

2. Plaintiff Christopher John Gilmore's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, (Dkt. 3), is DENIED.

3. Gilmore's Motion for Summary Judgment, (Dkt. 6), is DENIED as premature.

4. Gilmore's Motion for Order of Prisoner Release, (Dkt. 10), is DENIED.

5. Gilmore's Motion for Immediate Summary Judgment, (Dkt. 20), is DENIED as premature.

FootNotes


1. Defendants Officer Jaime Bleess, Fairmont Police Dept., City of Fairmont, and Debbie Foster have made an appearance in this case. To the extent that Defendants' appearance undermines the R&R's conclusion that the Court does not have jurisdiction to render a judgment over these Defendants, see Sieg v. Karnes, 693 F.2d 803, 807 (8th Cir. 1982), Gilmore's two motions for summary judgment are nonetheless denied as premature because genuine issues of material fact remain.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer