Cooley v. Summit
- Laura Provinzino
- 0:24-cv-02457
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 1
In Morye Cooley v. Summit, Judge Provinzino adopted the recommendation, granted Summit’s sanctions motion, and dismissed Cooley’s complaint with prejudice.
Morye Cooley’s complaint was dismissed with prejudice, and Summit’s motion for sanctions was granted. The opinion does not specify the sanctions imposed.
What happened
Morye Cooley sued Summit, and the court considered a magistrate judge’s recommendation addressing Summit’s motion for sanctions and Cooley’s complaint.
No objections to the recommendation were filed within the allowed period, so the court reviewed it for clear error. The opinion does not describe the conduct underlying the sanctions motion.
Judge Laura M. Provinzino found no clear error, adopted the recommendation, granted Summit’s motion for sanctions, and dismissed Cooley’s complaint with prejudice. The court ordered judgment to be entered.
The detailed version
- Cooley v. Summit · No. 0:24-cv-02457
- Laura M. Provinzino
- June 12, 2026
Background
Morye Cooley brought a complaint against Summit. The court considered a Report and Recommendation from United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright. The recommendation advised granting Summit’s motion for sanctions and dismissing Cooley’s complaint with prejudice.
Review of the Recommendation
Neither party filed objections within the permitted period. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the district court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error. The opinion does not state what conduct supported the sanctions request or otherwise explain the underlying dispute.
Ruling
United States District Judge Laura M. Provinzino found no clear error and ordered that: (1) the Report and Recommendation was adopted; (2) Summit’s motion for sanctions was granted; and (3) Cooley’s complaint was dismissed with prejudice. The court also directed that judgment be entered. “With prejudice” means the complaint cannot be refiled as the same claim.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.