Jones v. Jett
Filing
19
ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of Chief United States Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan dated August 12, 2011 14 . 2. Kelly Jones' Motion to Vacate Sanctions under 28 U.S.C. 7; 2241 and Constitutional Amendment 8 1 is DENIED. 3. This matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.(Written Opinion). Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Davis on 11/8/11. (GRR) (cc: Kelly Jones) Modified on 11/8/2011 (akl).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
KELLY JONES,
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
Civil File No. 10-4201 (MJD/AJB)
WARDEN JETT,
Defendant.
Kelly Jones, pro se.
Anna H. Voss, Assistant United States Attorney, Counsel for Defendant.
The above-entitled matter comes before the Court upon the Report and
Recommendation of Chief United States Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan dated
August 12, 2011. [Docket No. 14] Plaintiff Kelly Jones filed objections to the
Report and Recommendation.
Pursuant to statute, the Court has conducted a de novo review upon the
record of the portion of the Magistrate Judge’s disposition to which specific
written objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.2(b). Based
1
upon that review, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of Chief
United States Magistrate Judge Boylan dated August 12, 2011.
Accordingly, based upon the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of Chief United
States Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan dated August 12, 2011 [Docket
No. 14].
2. Kelly Jones’ Motion to Vacate Sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and
Constitutional Amendment 8 [Docket No. 1] is DENIED.
3. This matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: November 8, 2011
s/ Michael J. Davis
Michael J. Davis
Chief Judge
United States District Court
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?