Robinson v. Minnesota, State of et al
ORDER denying 361 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply filed by Tony Terrell Robinson; adopting Report and Recommendations 356 ; granting 252 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Centurion of Minnesota, LLC, Jeanne Luck, 242 Mo tion for Summary Judgment filed by Stephen Dannewitz, 219 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Ranjiv Saini; denying 268 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply, Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery, Motion for Miscella neous Relief filed by Tony Terrell Robinson, 273 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery filed by Tony Terrell Robinson; denying as moot 283 Motion to Stay filed by Stephen Dannewitz, 297 Motion to Appoint Expert filed by Tony Terrell Robinson, 319 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief filed by Tony Terrell Robinson, and 341 Motion to Stay filed by Ranjiv Saini, (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge David S. Doty on 11/16/2020.(EMM)
CASE 0:17-cv-00437-DSD-KMM Doc. 364 Filed 11/16/20 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Civil No. 17-0437 (DSD/KMM)
Tony Terrell Robinson,
Minnesota, State of et al.,
The above matter is before the court upon the July 22,
2020, report and recommendation (R&R) of United States
Magistrate Judge Katherine M. Menendez.
The court previously
granted two requests by plaintiff Tony Terrell Robinson to
extend the deadline by which Robinson must file objections to
See ECF No. 358 (granting request for thirty-day
extension); ECF No. 360 (granting request for forty-day
Robinson has moved for a third extension of sixty days,
which the court now denies.
Parties typically have two weeks
after an R&R is issued to file objections.
D. Minn. L.R.
This R&R has been pending since July 22, 2020, nearly
Although the court is sympathetic to Robinson’s
circumstances, the court is not convinced that another extension
CASE 0:17-cv-00437-DSD-KMM Doc. 364 Filed 11/16/20 Page 2 of 3
Because no objections have been filed within the timeline
previously set, the court now considers whether to adopt the
The court has carefully reviewed the parties’ briefing and
evidence regarding each of the pending motions.
Based on this
review of the file, record, and proceedings herein, the court
determines that the R&R is well-reasoned and correct.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
The motion for an extension to file objections to the
R&R [ECF No. 361] is denied;
The R&R [ECF No. 356] is adopted in its entirety;
The motions for summary judgment by defendants Ranjiv
Saini, Stephen Dannewitz, Jeanne Luck, and Centurion of
Minnesota, LLC [ECF Nos. 219, 242, 252] are granted;
The motions to deny summary judgment as premature [ECF
Nos. 268, 273] are denied;
The remaining motions to stay expert discovery [ECF
No. 283], to appoint expert [ECF No. 297], to have subpoenas
served [ECF No. 319], and to join motion to stay expert
discovery [ECF No. 341] are denied as moot;
Defendant Advanced Medical Imaging, Inc. is dismissed;1
Although not involved in any of the motions for summary
judgment, it is appropriate to dismiss Advanced Medical Imaging,
Inc. (AMI) at this time. Notably, Robinson’s attempts to
properly serve a summons on or seek a waiver of service from AMI
CASE 0:17-cv-00437-DSD-KMM Doc. 364 Filed 11/16/20 Page 3 of 3
This action is dismissed.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
November 16, 2020
/s David S. Doty
David S. Doty, Judge
United States District Court
all failed. See ECF Nos. 31, 91, 131. Because AMI was not
properly served within the time allowed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m),
the court now dismisses AMI. Further, Robinson’s claims against
AMI rest on the same factual and legal arguments made against
defendants Saini, Dannewitz, Luck, and Centurion of Minnesota.
See generally 2d Am. Compl., ECF No. 197. Because the court
determines that summary judgment is properly granted to those
defendants, Robinson’s claims against AMI must also fail.
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?