Miles v. Johnston
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:24-cv-01012
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Miles v. Johnston, Judge Tostrud accepted the recommendation and denied both motions without prejudice.
Gordon Miles and the defendants are affected. The court accepted the report and recommendation, denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss without prejudice, and denied Miles’s motion for a preliminary injunction without prejudice.
What happened
Miles v. Johnston concerns Gordon Miles’s case against Nancy Johnston and other named and unnamed defendants. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims.
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright issued a report and recommendation. No party objected, so the court reviewed it for clear error and found none.
Judge Tostrud accepted the report and recommendation in full, denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss without prejudice, and denied Miles’s motion for a preliminary injunction without prejudice.
The detailed version
- Miles v. Johnston · No. 0:24-cv-01012
- Eric Tostrud
- Jan. 10, 2025
Background
Gordon Miles sued Nancy Johnston, Nancy Stacken, Courtney Menton, David Miles, Kristen Sherlock, Sarah McDowell, Mike Messenger, Timothy Petersen, Justin Tuchek, Jacob Davis, Kevin Schleret, Christopher Vanderpool, Katy Porter, and unnamed defendants. The defendants were sued in their official and individual capacities. The opinion text does not describe the claims or the events underlying the case.
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright issued an Order and Report and Recommendation on December 17, 2024. The opinion states that no party objected to it.
Court’s Review and Ruling
Because there were no objections, the court reviewed the report and recommendation for clear error under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). The court found no clear error.
Judge Eric C. Tostrud ordered that the report and recommendation be accepted in full. The court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss without prejudice and denied Miles’s motion for a preliminary injunction without prejudice. The opinion does not state the reasons for either denial because it does not include the report and recommendation’s analysis.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.