Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Procedural orderFiled June 15, 2020

Stone v. Davis

Judge
Wilhelmina Wright
Docket
0:20-cv-00669
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Stone v. Davis, Judge Wright adopted an unobjected-to recommendation and transferred the matter to Illinois under a federal venue statute.

Who this affects

The parties and the case were affected by the transfer from the District of Minnesota to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

What happened

Stone v. Davis involved Patrick Stone as the plaintiff and Andrew Davis, J. Matthew Linstroth, and Katz & Stefani, LLC, as defendants. The order considered a magistrate judge’s recommendation, and no party objected to it.

The court found no clear error in the recommendation, adopted it, and transferred the matter to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). This order does not explain the recommendation’s underlying reasoning.

Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright signed the June 15, 2020 order. The order did not decide the parties’ underlying claims.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Stone v. Davis · No. 0:20-cv-00669
Judge
Wilhelmina Wright
Date
June 15, 2020

Background

The matter was before the court on a May 12, 2020 Report and Recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson. The opinion states that no objections to the recommendation were filed.

Standard of Review

Because no timely objections were filed, the district court reviewed the recommendation for clear error. The court reviewed the recommendation and found no clear error. The opinion does not provide the recommendation’s underlying analysis.

Ruling

The court adopted the May 12, 2020 Report and Recommendation. It also transferred the matter to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). The order did not resolve the underlying legal claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.