Doranti v. Moser et al

Filing 12

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 1. Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois's Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 10 ) is ADOPTED. 2. Plaintiff's request for dismissal (Doc. No. 9 ) is construed as a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal; as such, the request is GRANTED.3. Because Plaintiff previously filed an identical complaint in another matter, which was ultimately dismissed voluntarily, this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 4. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. No. 2 ) is DENIED AS MOOT. 5. Plaintiffs Motion for the Appointment of Counsel (Doc. No. 3 ) is DENIED AS MOOT. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 5/15/2014. (BJS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Sarprio Doranti,

Civil No. 14-767 (DWF/LIB)
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION

Kevin D. Moser, Thomas J. Lundquist,
and Unknown Jane and John Does in
Carlton County, each sued in their
individual and official capacities,
Defendants.

The above matter comes before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation
of United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois dated April 25, 2014. (Doc. No. 10.)
No objections have been filed to that Report and Recommendation in the time period
permitted. The factual background for the above-entitled matter is clearly and precisely
set forth in the Report and Recommendation and is incorporated by reference. Based
upon the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and upon all of the files,
records, and proceedings herein, the Court now makes and enters the following:
ORDER
1.

Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois’s Report and Recommendation (Doc.

No. [10]) is ADOPTED.
2.

Plaintiff’s request for dismissal (Doc. No. [9]) is construed as a Notice of

Voluntary Dismissal; as such, the request is GRANTED.

3.

Because Plaintiff previously filed an identical complaint in another matter,

which was ultimately dismissed voluntarily, this case is DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.
4.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. No. [2])

is DENIED AS MOOT.
5.

Plaintiff’s Motion for the Appointment of Counsel (Doc. No. [3]) is

DENIED AS MOOT.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.

Dated: May 15, 2014

s/Donovan W. Frank
DONOVAN W. FRANK
United States District Judge

2