Favors v. Lanin
- Jerry Blackwell
- 0:24-cv-02709
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 1
In Favors v. Lanin, Judge Blackwell accepted the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denied Favors’s request for an immediate restraining order.
Plaintiff Joseph Anthony Favors’s request for an immediate restraining order was denied; the opinion does not describe any further effect on the parties.
What happened
In Favors v. Lanin, Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois issued a report and recommendation on August 27, 2024. The opinion does not describe the underlying allegations or requested relief beyond identifying the request as an “immediate [Preemptory] Restraining Order.”
No objections to the recommendation were filed within the permitted time. The district court therefore reviewed it for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake, and found none.
Judge Jerry W. Blackwell accepted the report and recommendation and denied Plaintiff Joseph Anthony Favors’s request for an “immediate [Preemptory] Restraining Order.”
The detailed version
- Favors v. Lanin · No. 0:24-cv-02709
- Jerry W. Blackwell
- Oct. 23, 2024
Background
Joseph Anthony Favors sued Mike Lanin, Jodi Hardstead, and Nancy Johnston in their individual and official capacities as identified in the case caption. The opinion addresses Favors’s request for an “immediate [Preemptory] Restraining Order.” It does not provide the factual allegations supporting that request.
Report and Recommendation
United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois issued a Report and Recommendation on August 27, 2024. No party filed objections within the permitted time. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the district court reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake. The court found no clear error.
Ruling
Judge Jerry W. Blackwell accepted the August 27, 2024 Report and Recommendation and denied Favors’s request for an “immediate [Preemptory] Restraining Order.” The opinion does not state the specific reasons the requested order was denied beyond the court’s finding that the recommendation contained no clear error.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.