Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Procedural orderFiled June 9, 2021

Laughlin v. Stuart

Judge
Eric Tostrud
Docket
0:19-cv-02547
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
1
Civil ProcedurePreliminary Injunction
In one sentence

In Laughlin v. Stuart, Judge Tostrud accepted the report and recommendation and denied the plaintiffs’ motion for injunctive relief.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief was denied; the order also accepted Magistrate Judge Leung’s Report and Recommendation.

What happened

Laughlin v. Stuart involved plaintiffs Malik Laughlin, Kenneth Lewis, and Michael Hari and several Anoka County law-enforcement defendants. The opinion concerns a motion for injunctive relief.

Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung issued a report and recommendation on May 12, 2021. No party objected, so the district court reviewed the recommendation for clear error.

Judge Eric C. Tostrud found no clear error, accepted the report and recommendation, and denied the motion for injunctive relief. The court directed that judgment be entered accordingly.

The detailed version

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

Case
Laughlin v. Stuart · No. 0:19-cv-02547
Judge
Eric Tostrud
Date
June 9, 2021

Background

Malik Laughlin, Kenneth Lewis, and Michael Hari sued James Stuart, identified in the caption as Sheriff of Anoka County, and other Anoka County deputy-sheriff defendants. The order addresses the plaintiffs’ Motion for Injunction Relief, docket entry 288.

Report and Recommendation

Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung issued a Report and Recommendation on May 12, 2021. No party objected to it. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the district court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake in the magistrate judge’s recommendation.

Ruling

Judge Eric C. Tostrud found no clear error. The court accepted the Report and Recommendation and denied the Motion for Injunction Relief. The order directed that judgment be entered accordingly. The opinion does not describe the requested injunction or explain the underlying reasons for denying it beyond the court’s finding that the Report and Recommendation contained no clear error.

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.