Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 27, 2021

Mays v. Sherburne County Jail

Judge
Paul Magnuson
Docket
0:20-cv-00506
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePreliminary Injunction
In one sentence

In Mays v. Sherburne County Jail, Judge Magnuson adopted the recommendation and denied Mays’s first request for a temporary restraining order.

Who this affects

Otis Mays’s first request for a temporary restraining order was denied; the order does not state a disposition for his second request.

What happened

In Mays v. Sherburne County Jail, Magistrate Judge Katherine M. Menendez recommended denying Otis Mays’s first motion for a temporary restraining order. Mays did not object to that recommendation before the deadline.

The court reviewed the recommendation for clear error because no objection was filed. It found no error in the magistrate judge’s reasoning. The opinion also notes that Mays filed a second request raising different claims, but this order rules only on the first request.

Judge Paul A. Magnuson adopted the recommendation and denied Mays’s first motion for a temporary restraining order. The order does not state a disposition for the second motion.

The detailed version

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

Case
Mays v. Sherburne County Jail · No. 0:20-cv-00506
Judge
Paul Magnuson
Date
Oct. 27, 2021

Background

Otis Mays sued Sherburne County Jail and the other named defendants. The court considered a Report and Recommendation from United States Magistrate Judge Katherine M. Menendez, dated September 30, 2021. The recommendation addressed Mays’s first motion for a temporary restraining order, which asks the court for immediate temporary relief.

On October 20, 2021, Mays filed a second motion for a temporary restraining order that raised claims different from those in his first motion. The order does not decide that second motion. Mays did not object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, and the deadline for doing so had passed.

Court’s Review

When a party makes specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the district court reviews the challenged portions from the beginning. Without objections, the court reviews the recommendation only for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake. The court reviewed the recommendation and found no error, clear or otherwise, in the magistrate judge’s reasoning.

Ruling

Judge Paul A. Magnuson adopted the Report and Recommendation and denied Mays’s first motion for a temporary restraining order. The order does not state a disposition for Mays’s second motion.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.