Peet v. Sidney
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:17-cv-01870
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 1
In Peet v. Morfit, Judge Tostrud accepted a magistrate judge’s recommendation and denied Peet’s motion for default based on alleged rule violations.
John E. Peet’s motion for default was denied. The order also accepted Magistrate Judge Leung’s report and recommendation; the opinion does not state any broader effect on the parties.
What happened
John E. Peet asked the court for default against Sue Morfit and Mark Jones, citing alleged violations involving a judge’s order, an initial-disclosure rule, and requests for admission. The opinion does not describe the underlying dispute.
Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung issued a report and recommendation on January 21, 2020. No party objected, so the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error.
Judge Eric C. Tostrud found no clear error, accepted the report and recommendation, and denied Peet’s motion for default.
The detailed version
- Peet v. Sidney · No. 0:17-cv-01870
- Eric Tostrud
- Feb. 11, 2020
Background
John E. Peet filed a motion titled “Motion for Default for Failure to Comply with a Judge Order with Local Rule Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A) and Rule 36 Admission Sue Morfit and Mark Jones.” The order does not provide additional facts about the alleged violations or the underlying claims.
Report and Recommendation
United States Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung issued a report and recommendation on January 21, 2020. No party objected. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake in the recommendation.
Ruling
The court found no clear error. It accepted the report and recommendation and denied Peet’s motion for default. The order does not state any additional disposition of the case.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.