Gilmore v. Martin County Sheriff Dept.
- Elizabeth Cowan Wright
- 0:19-cv-00141
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Christopher John Gilmore v. Martin County Sheriff Dept., Judge Wright adopted the recommendation and denied Gilmore’s temporary restraining, summary-judgment, and prisoner-release motions.
Christopher John Gilmore and the defendants in the case, including the Martin County Sheriff Dept. and the other named defendants.
What happened
Christopher John Gilmore asked the court for a temporary restraining order, two summary-judgment motions, and an order releasing him from prison. A magistrate judge recommended denying all four motions.
Gilmore did not timely object to that recommendation. The court therefore reviewed it for clear error and found none.
Judge Wright adopted the recommendation and denied all four motions. She denied the two summary-judgment motions as premature because genuine disputes about important facts remained.
The detailed version
- Gilmore v. Martin County Sheriff Dept. · No. 0:19-cv-00141
- Elizabeth Cowan Wright
- Aug. 16, 2019
Background
Christopher John Gilmore filed motions for a temporary restraining order, summary judgment, immediate summary judgment, and an order releasing him from prison. United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright issued a report and recommendation on July 12, 2019, recommending that the court deny all four motions.
Review of the Recommendation
Gilmore did not file timely objections. When a party does not timely object to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the district court reviews the recommendation for clear error—an obvious mistake on the face of the record. The court reviewed the recommendation and found no clear error.
Ruling
Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright adopted the report and recommendation. The court denied Gilmore’s motion for a temporary restraining order, denied his motion for an order of prisoner release, and denied both summary-judgment motions as premature. A summary-judgment motion asks the court to decide a claim without a trial when there is no genuine dispute about important facts. The order states that genuine issues of material fact remained. The court also noted that the defendants’ appearances did not change the denial of the summary-judgment motions because they remained premature.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.