Jackson v. Schnell
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:22-cv-03074
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Jackson v. Schnell, Judge Menendez accepted the recommendation and denied Jackson’s third request for an expedited preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order.
Tony Dejuan Jackson’s request for an expedited preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order was denied; the opinion identifies Paul Schnell and Guy Bosch as the defendants.
What happened
In Jackson v. Schnell, Tony Dejuan Jackson asked the court for a third emergency order requiring or preventing certain action while his case continued.
A magistrate judge recommended denying Jackson’s motion. Jackson filed no objections, and the deadline for objections had passed.
Judge Katherine Menendez reviewed the recommendation for clear error, found none, accepted it, and denied Jackson’s third motion for an expedited preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order.
The detailed version
- Jackson v. Schnell · No. 0:22-cv-03074
- Katherine Menendez
- Apr. 12, 2024
Background
Tony Dejuan Jackson filed a Third Motion for an Emergency Prohibitory Injunction Order and Temporary Restraining Order. The opinion does not repeat the factual background addressed in the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation.
Review of the Recommendation
Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko recommended denying Jackson’s motion. Jackson filed no objections, and the deadline for doing so had passed. Because there were no objections, the court reviewed the Report and Recommendation for clear error rather than conducting a fresh review of the disputed issues.
Ruling
The court accepted the Report and Recommendation and denied Jackson’s Third Motion for an Expedited Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order. The opinion states that the court “finds no clear,” apparently omitting the remainder of that phrase; the order nevertheless clearly states that the recommendation was accepted and the motion was denied.
Effect
The ruling denied Jackson’s requested preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. It did not decide the underlying claims described in the opinion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.