Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 10, 2023

Jones v. Ellison

Judge
Wilhelmina Wright
Docket
0:22-cv-02144
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Jones v. Ellison, Judge Wright adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denied Chester V. Jones’s request to resubmit an earlier Minnesota case.

Who this affects

Petitioner Chester V. Jones, whose request concerning the earlier Minnesota state-court case was denied. The opinion does not describe any additional effect on respondent Keith Ellison.

What happened

In Jones v. Ellison, Chester V. Jones filed an amended petition that asked for the “resubmittance” of an earlier Minnesota state-court case.

No one filed objections to the magistrate judge’s December 8, 2022 report and recommendation. The court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none.

Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright adopted the report and recommendation and denied the amended petition’s request concerning the earlier case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Jones v. Ellison · No. 0:22-cv-02144
Judge
Wilhelmina Wright
Date
Jan. 10, 2023

Background

The court considered the December 8, 2022 report and recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty. The opinion states that Chester V. Jones had filed an amended petition seeking the “resubmittance” of Jones v. Evans, No. 62-cv-16-6425, in Minnesota District Court.

Court’s Review

No objections to the report and recommendation were filed. In that situation, the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake apparent from the record. After reviewing the recommendation and the case materials, the court found no clear error.

Disposition

The court adopted the December 8, 2022 report and recommendation. It denied Chester V. Jones’s amended petition with respect to its request for the “resubmittance” of the earlier Minnesota state-court case. The opinion does not explain the underlying legal basis for that request or provide additional rulings on the amended petition.

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.