Carlson v. Schnell
- Wilhelmina Wright
- 0:20-cv-01676
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Carlson v. Schnell, Judge Wright adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denied Carlson’s request for a temporary restraining order.
Joshua Jon Carlson, whose motion for a temporary restraining order was denied; the order also adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.
What happened
In Carlson v. Schnell, Joshua Jon Carlson asked the court for a temporary restraining order. A magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation on August 18, 2020.
Carlson filed a document labeled as an objection, but the court found that it did not actually object to the recommendation. Because there were no objections, the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none.
Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright adopted the report and recommendation and denied Carlson’s motion for a temporary restraining order.
The detailed version
- Carlson v. Schnell · No. 0:20-cv-01676
- Wilhelmina Wright
- Nov. 10, 2020
Background
The court considered an August 18, 2020 report and recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer. The recommendation concerned Joshua Jon Carlson’s motion for a temporary restraining order.
Carlson filed a document labeled “Response (Objection) to Report and Recommendation.” The court determined that the filing did not discuss objections to the recommendation. The court therefore treated Carlson as having made no objections.
Review and ruling
When no objections are made to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the district court reviews it for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake. The court reviewed the recommendation, found no clear error, and adopted it.
The court denied Carlson’s motion for a temporary restraining order. The order did not state any additional disposition of the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.