United States v. Yennie
- Elizabeth Cowan Wright
- 0:18-cv-03268
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In United States v. Yennie, Judge Wright adopted the recommendation, granted the United States’ motion against Joseph Yennie’s counterclaims, and denied Sheila Yennie’s dismissal motion.
The United States, Joseph H. Yennie, and Sheila A. Yennie; the order removed one count and dismissed two counts from Joseph H. Yennie’s answer and counterclaim while leaving Sheila A. Yennie’s dismissal motion denied.
What happened
In United States v. Yennie, the United States asked the court to strike Count I and dismiss Counts III and IV of Joseph H. Yennie’s answer and counterclaim. Sheila A. Yennie separately asked the court to dismiss the United States’ complaint.
The defendants objected to a magistrate judge’s recommended decision. The court said the objections were not specific enough, lacked legal merit, repeated earlier arguments, and were partly filed late. It therefore overruled the objections.
Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright adopted the recommendation after finding it was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The court granted the United States’ motion to strike Count I and dismiss Counts III and IV of Joseph H. Yennie’s answer and counterclaim, and denied Sheila A. Yennie’s motion to dismiss.
The detailed version
- United States v. Yennie · No. 0:18-cv-03268
- Elizabeth Cowan Wright
- Jan. 19, 2021
Background
The United States brought this action against Joseph H. Yennie and Sheila A. Yennie. The United States moved to strike Count I and dismiss Counts III and IV of Joseph H. Yennie’s answer and counterclaim. Sheila A. Yennie filed a separate motion to dismiss the complaint.
A United States magistrate judge issued an October 27, 2020 Report and Recommendation recommending that the court grant the United States’ motion concerning Joseph H. Yennie’s answer and counterclaim and deny Sheila A. Yennie’s motion to dismiss.
Review of the Recommendation
The district court explained that it reviews specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation independently, while reviewing unobjected-to portions for clear error. The court found that the defendants’ objections were insufficiently specific or lacked legal merit, repeated arguments already presented to the magistrate judge, and were partly untimely. The objections were therefore overruled.
The court also reviewed the Report and Recommendation and found it neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.
Ruling
Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright adopted the Report and Recommendation. The court granted the United States’ motion to strike Count I and dismiss Counts III and IV of Joseph H. Yennie’s answer and counterclaim. The court denied Sheila A. Yennie’s motion to dismiss. The opinion does not provide the underlying factual or legal details of the counts in this order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.