Smith v. Best & Flanagan, LLP et al

Filing 85

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AS MODIFIED. Plaintiff's complaint 1 is dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff's motions 42 , 53 , 68 are denied without prejudice. Plaintiff is RESTRICTED from filing any new legal actions in the District of Minnesota unless he is represented by counsel or first obtains prior written authorization to file an action from a judicial officer of this District using the procedure described in the April 26, 2017 Report and Recommendation(Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright on 08/01/2017. (TJB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Nevada Smith, also known as
Michael L. Buesgens,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 16-cv-2436 (WMW/TNL)
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION AS MODIFIED

v.
Best & Flanagan, LLP; Steven R. Kruger;
Charles C. Berquist; Edward P. Sheu; and
Timothy A. Sullivan,
Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on the April 26, 2017 Report and Recommendation
of United States Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung. (Dkt. 80.) Because no objections
have been filed, this Court reviews the Report and Recommendation for clear error.1 See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam).
Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the Court finds no clear error. In
light of the dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint, however, the Court concludes that
Plaintiff’s remaining outstanding filings need not be substantively addressed or stricken
from the record.

Therefore, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation as

modified so as to deny all remaining outstanding motions without prejudice as moot.

1

On May 18, 2017, Plaintiff filed a document that purports to respond to the
April 26, 2017 Report and Recommendation. (Dkt. 81.) That document was not filed
within the 14-day objection period; and even if it were deemed timely, the document does
not substantively object or otherwise respond to the analysis or conclusions in the Report
and Recommendation. Therefore, this Court need not address Plaintiff’s purported
response.

ORDER
Based on the foregoing analysis and all the files, records and proceedings herein,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1.

The April 26, 2017 Report and Recommendation, (Dkt. 80), is ADOPTED

AS MODIFIED as outlined herein;
2.

Plaintiff’s

Complaint,

(Dkt.

1),

is

DISMISSED

WITHOUT

PREJUDICE;
3.

Plaintiff’s remaining outstanding motions, (Dkts. 42, 53, 68), are DENIED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE as moot; and
4.

Plaintiff Nevada Smith, a/k/a Michael L. Buesgens, is restricted from filing

any new legal actions in this District unless he is represented by counsel or first obtains
prior written authorization to file an action from a judicial officer of this District using
the procedure described in the April 26, 2017 Report and Recommendation.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.

Dated: August 1, 2017

s/Wilhelmina M. Wright
Wilhelmina M. Wright
United States District Judge

2