Gordon-Greenwood v. United States of America
Kurtis Lavonte Gordon-Greenwood v. United States of America, United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, Douglas L. Micko, Andrew M. Luger, Lisa D. Kirkpatrick, Thomas M. Hollenhorst, Eddie M. Frizell, Donovan W. Frank, Kate M. Fogarty, and Jill A. Brisbois
- Jerry Blackwell
- 0:25-cv-02474
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Gordon-Greenwood v. United States, Judge Blackwell dismissed plaintiff Kurtis Lavonte Gordon-Greenwood's entire complaint after overruling his objections to a magistrate judge's recommendation.
Plaintiff Kurtis Lavonte Gordon-Greenwood, whose complaint against the United States, the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, and eight named federal officials and judges was dismissed in its entirety.
What happened
In Gordon-Greenwood v. United States of America et al. (Case No. 25-2474), plaintiff Kurtis Lavonte Gordon-Greenwood sued the United States, the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, and several named federal judges and officials. Two separate motions to dismiss were filed — one by defendant Jill A. Brisbois and one by the remaining federal defendants — and a magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation on January 26, 2026, recommending that both motions be granted and the complaint be dismissed.
Gordon-Greenwood filed objections to the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation. The court reviewed the portions of the report he specifically objected to from scratch (called de novo review) and reviewed the remaining portions for clear error. The court found that his objections identified no error of law or fact, and that the rest of the report was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.
Judge Jerry W. Blackwell overruled Gordon-Greenwood's objections, accepted the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation in full, granted both motions to dismiss, and dismissed Gordon-Greenwood's complaint in its entirety. The court directed that judgment be entered accordingly.
The detailed version
- Gordon-Greenwood v. United States of America · No. 0:25-cv-02474
- Jerry W. Blackwell
- Feb. 27, 2026
Background
Plaintiff Kurtis Lavonte Gordon-Greenwood filed a complaint (Doc. No. 1) in the District of Minnesota against a broad array of defendants: the United States of America, the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, and several named individuals — Douglas L. Micko, Andrew M. Luger, Lisa D. Kirkpatrick, Thomas M. Hollenhorst, Eddie M. Frizell, Donovan W. Frank, Kate M. Fogarty, and Jill A. Brisbois. The opinion does not describe the underlying substantive claims in detail.
Magistrate Judge Proceedings
United States Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on January 26, 2026 (Doc. No. 38). The R&R recommended granting two separate motions to dismiss: (1) defendant Brisbois's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 14) and (2) the Federal Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 19). Gordon-Greenwood filed objections to the R&R (Doc. No. 44).
Standard of Review
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and District of Minnesota Local Rule 72.2(b)(3), portions of an R&R to which a party specifically objects are reviewed de novo — meaning the district judge examines the issue anew, without deference to the magistrate judge's analysis. Portions not specifically objected to are reviewed only for clear error, a more deferential standard. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996).
Court's Analysis and Ruling
Judge Blackwell reviewed Gordon-Greenwood's objections under the de novo standard and concluded they did not identify any error of law or fact that would warrant rejecting the R&R's recommendations. The court further reviewed all non-objected-to portions of the R&R under the clear-error standard and found them neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.
Accordingly, the court:
- Overruled Gordon-Greenwood's objections (Doc. No. 44);
- Accepted the January 26, 2026 R&R (Doc. No. 38);
- Granted defendant Brisbois's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 14);
- Granted the Federal Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 19); and
- Dismissed Gordon-Greenwood's complaint (Doc. No. 1) in its entirety.
The court directed that judgment be entered accordingly.
Notes and Limitations
The opinion is a short order accepting an R&R; it does not describe the underlying claims in the complaint or the legal grounds on which dismissal was recommended. The specific legal theories asserted by Gordon-Greenwood, and the precise bases for the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss, are found in the R&R (Doc. No. 38) rather than in this order. The order does not specify whether the dismissal is with or without prejudice.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.