Braxton v. Minnesota, State of
- Jeffrey Bryan
- 0:24-cv-02455
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 1
In Braxton v. Minnesota, Judge Bryan adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denied Braxton’s preliminary-injunction motion without prejudice.
Sonya Braxton’s request for an injunction was denied without prejudice; the order did not resolve the underlying claims against the State of Minnesota or the other defendants.
What happened
Sonya Braxton sued the State of Minnesota and other defendants. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the relief she seeks in the lawsuit.
Braxton filed a motion seeking an injunction, including a preliminary injunction. A magistrate judge recommended denying the motion to the extent it sought a preliminary injunction. Neither party objected to that recommendation.
Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan reviewed the recommendation for clear error, found none, adopted it, and denied Braxton’s injunction motion without prejudice. This ruling did not decide the underlying claims described in the lawsuit.
The detailed version
- Braxton v. Minnesota, State of · No. 0:24-cv-02455
- Jeffrey M. Bryan
- Nov. 12, 2024
Background
The court considered Sonya Braxton’s motion for an injunction in her case against the State of Minnesota and other defendants. The opinion does not explain the underlying claims or the specific conduct the requested injunction would address.
Report and Recommendation
United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois issued a report and recommendation dated September 30, 2023. It recommended denying Braxton’s motion to the extent it sought a preliminary injunction. Neither party objected, and the time for objections had passed.
Review and Ruling
Because no timely objections were filed, the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake in the recommendation. The court found no clear error, adopted the report and recommendation, and denied Braxton’s injunction motion without prejudice. The order did not decide the merits of the underlying case.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.