Stone v. Jesson
- Elizabeth Cowan Wright
- 0:11-cv-00951
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 1
In Stone v. Jesson, Judge Wright adopted the recommendation and denied Stone’s temporary restraining-order motion without prejudice.
Charles Richard Stone’s motion for a temporary restraining order was denied without prejudice; the order also adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation in the case against Lucinda E. Jesson and the other defendants.
What happened
In Stone v. Jesson, Charles Richard Stone asked the court for a temporary restraining order. The opinion does not describe the relief he sought or the reasons for his request.
A magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation on March 7, 2019. Because no objections were filed, the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none.
Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright adopted the recommendation and denied Stone’s motion for a temporary restraining order without prejudice. The opinion does not state the recommendation’s underlying reasoning.
The detailed version
- Stone v. Jesson · No. 0:11-cv-00951
- Elizabeth Cowan Wright
- Apr. 15, 2019
Background
Plaintiff Charles Richard Stone filed a motion for a temporary restraining order. The opinion does not provide details about the requested order, the defendants’ position, or the underlying dispute.
Court’s Review
United States Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer issued a report and recommendation on March 7, 2019. No objections were filed. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the district court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error—an obvious mistake in the magistrate judge’s reasoning or conclusion. The court found no clear error after reviewing the recommendation and the case records.
Ruling
Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright adopted the March 7, 2019 report and recommendation. The court denied Stone’s motion for a temporary restraining order without prejudice, meaning the order did not bar refiling the motion. The opinion does not explain the recommendation’s substantive reasoning.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.