Jurevica v. Kapacs
- Wilhelmina Wright
- 0:18-cv-01684
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Jurevica v. Kapacs, Judge Wright remanded the matter to Minnesota state court, denied two motions as moot, and adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation.
Anita Jurevica and Margots Kapacs. The matter was remanded to Minnesota state court, and Kapacs’s application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs and motion to correct the filing date were denied as moot.
What happened
In Jurevica v. Kapacs, the court reviewed a magistrate judge’s recommendation after no objections were filed. The opinion does not explain the underlying dispute or the reason for the recommended remand.
The court found no clear error and adopted the June 26, 2018 recommendation. It remanded the matter to Minnesota District Court, Fourth Judicial District, in Hennepin County. It also denied Margots Kapacs’s application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs and Kapacs’s motion to correct the filing date, both as moot.
Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright issued the order on August 31, 2018, and directed that judgment be entered.
The detailed version
- Jurevica v. Kapacs · No. 0:18-cv-01684
- Wilhelmina Wright
- Aug. 31, 2018
Background
The opinion concerns a June 26, 2018 report and recommendation by United States Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or explain why the matter was recommended for remand.
Court’s Review
No objections were filed to the report and recommendation. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the district court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error. The court stated that it found no clear error.
Ruling
The court adopted the June 26, 2018 report and recommendation. It remanded the matter to Minnesota District Court, Fourth Judicial District, in Hennepin County.
The court also denied as moot Margots Kapacs’s application to proceed in district court without prepaying fees or costs. It separately denied as moot Kapacs’s motion to correct the date of filing. The order directed that judgment be entered.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.