Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 23, 2020

Hodges v. State of Minnesota Department of Corrections

Judge
Wilhelmina Wright
Docket
0:20-cv-00090
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
1
Preliminary InjunctionCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Hodges v. State of Minnesota Department of Corrections, Judge Wright denied Hodges’s motion for a preliminary injunction after finding no clear error.

Who this affects

David Laurence Hodges’s request for a preliminary injunction was denied; the opinion does not state the effect on the underlying claims.

What happened

In Hodges v. State of Minnesota Department of Corrections, David Laurence Hodges asked the court for a preliminary injunction. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the requested injunction’s details.

No one objected to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The court therefore reviewed it for clear error and found none.

Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright adopted the report and recommendation and denied Hodges’s motion for a preliminary injunction.

The detailed version

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

Case
Hodges v. State of Minnesota Department of Corrections · No. 0:20-cv-00090
Judge
Wilhelmina Wright
Date
Nov. 23, 2020

Background

David Laurence Hodges filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. The opinion does not state the facts underlying the motion, the relief Hodges sought, or the claims in the case.

Review of the Recommendation

United States Magistrate Judge Katherine M. Menendez issued a report and recommendation on October 23, 2020. Because no objections were filed, Judge Wright reviewed the report and recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake in the magistrate judge’s analysis. Judge Wright found no clear error.

Ruling

The court adopted the October 23, 2020 report and recommendation and denied Hodges’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The opinion does not provide the report and recommendation’s reasoning or otherwise resolve the underlying 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.