Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Procedural orderFiled June 28, 2024

Meranelli v. Pruette

Judge
Jerry Blackwell
Docket
0:23-cv-02260
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

In Meranelli v. Pruette, Judge Blackwell accepted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and denied Meranelli’s motion for sanctions, spoliation, protective order, and notice.

Who this affects

The plaintiff’s motion for sanctions, spoliation, protective order, and notice was denied. The order also accepted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation; the opinion does not provide further details about its effect on the parties.

What happened

In Meranelli v. Pruette, Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster issued a report and recommendation on April 24, 2024. The opinion does not describe the report’s underlying analysis.

No party filed a timely objection to the report and recommendation. The district court therefore reviewed it for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake.

Judge Jerry W. Blackwell found no clear error, accepted the report and recommendation, and denied the plaintiff’s motion for sanctions, spoliation, protective order, and notice.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Meranelli v. Pruette · No. 0:23-cv-02260
Judge
Jerry W. Blackwell
Date
June 28, 2024

Background

Cherrity Honesty-Alexis Meranelli sued Jesse Ryan Pruette, identified in the caption as a security counselor assigned to the Special Services Department and the plaintiff’s primary property person at MSOP, along with Jane Does and John Does. The caption states that Pruette was sued in his official and individual capacities.

Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster issued a report and recommendation on April 24, 2024. The opinion does not explain the report’s underlying reasoning. No objections were filed within the permitted time.

Court’s Review and Ruling

Because no timely objections were filed, the district court reviewed the report and recommendation for clear error under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). The court found no clear error.

The court accepted the April 24, 2024 report and recommendation and denied Meranelli’s motion for sanctions, spoliation, protective order, and notice. The order does not state any additional disposition.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.