Williams v. Hollaren et al
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 55 (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright on 02/07/17. (TJB) cc: Williams on 2/7/2017 (LPH).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Case No. 16-cv-0552 (WMW/SER)
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
Bart Hollaren, Dana Feddema, Chad
Mitsch, Kristin Lang, and Tessa Ion,
This matter is before the Court on the January 11, 2017 Amended Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau. (Dkt. 55.)
No objections to the R&R have been filed in the time period permitted. In the absence of
timely objections, this Court reviews an R&R for clear error. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)
advisory committee’s note (“When no timely objection is filed, the court need only
satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the
recommendation.”); Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996). Having
reviewed the R&R, the Court finds no clear error.
Based on all the files, records and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY
The January 11, 2017 Report and Recommendation, (Dkt. 55), is
Plaintiff Michael Williams’ motion to amend, (Dkt. 34), is DENIED;
The motion to dismiss of Defendants Bart Hollaren, Dana Feddema, and
Tessa Ion, (Dkt. 12), is GRANTED;
Plaintiff Michael Williams’ claims against Defendants Chad Mitsch and
Kristin Lang are DISMISSED; and
Williams’ complaint, (Dkt. 1), is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Consequently, the following motions are DENIED AS MOOT:
a. Williams’ motion for an order setting aside Minnesota D.O.C. grievance
procedures, (Dkt. 25);
b. Williams’ motion to dismiss, (Dkt. 43);
c. Williams’ motion for an extension of time, (Dkt. 49);
d. Williams’ motion to withdraw his motion to dismiss, (Dkt. 50); and
e. Williams’ motion for a change of address, (Dkt. 51).
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: February 7, 2017
s/Wilhelmina M. Wright
Wilhelmina M. Wright
United States District Judge
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?