Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantobjection
defendantdocketobjection

Related Cases

Krebs Hop Co. v. Livesley, 59 Or. 574, 114 P. 944, Am.Ann.Cas. 1913C,758
View Case »
Raasch v. Goulet, 57 N.D. 674, 223 N.W. 808
View Case »
Tasini v. AOL, Inc., 851 F.Supp.2d 734, 40 Media L. Rep. 1641
View Case »
Ruff v. Weintraub, 105 N.J. 233, 519 A.2d 1384, 55 USLW 2435
View Case »
Dayton Hudson Corp. v. American Mut. Liability Ins. Co., 621 P.2d 1155, 16 A.L.R.4th 1, 1980 OK 193
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Yang v. Minnesota, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2022 WL 17852082

Facts

Lue Yang filed claims against the State of Minnesota, City of Minneapolis, and Richfield Police Department. Judge John F. Docherty issued a Report and Recommendation on November 30, 2022, suggesting that Yang's claims be dismissed without prejudice due to a failure to state a claim. Yang did not object to the R&R, and the time for objections had passed.

Yang did not file any objections to the R&R, and the time to do so is now past.

Issue

Did Lue Yang adequately state a claim against the State of Minnesota, City of Minneapolis, and Richfield Police Department?

Did Lue Yang adequately state a claim against the State of Minnesota, City of Minneapolis, and Richfield Police Department?

Rule

In the absence of objections to a Report and Recommendation, the court reviews it only for clear error.

This Court must review de novo any portion of an R&R to which specific objections are made, but in the absence of objections, the Court reviews the R&R only for clear error.

Analysis

The court reviewed the R&R and found no clear error in the reasoning provided by the Magistrate Judge. Since Yang did not file any objections, the court accepted the R&R's recommendations without further scrutiny.

The Court has reviewed the R&R and finds no error, clear or otherwise, in the Magistrate Judge's reasoning.

Conclusion

The court adopted the R&R and dismissed the claims against the State of Minnesota, City of Minneapolis, and Richfield Police Department without prejudice.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The R&R (Docket No. 7) is ADOPTED; and 2. Defendants State of Minnesota, City of Minneapolis, and Richfield Police Department are DISMISSED without prejudice from this action.

Who won?

The Defendants (State of Minnesota, City of Minneapolis, and Richfield Police Department) prevailed in the case as the court dismissed the claims against them due to Yang's failure to state a claim.

You must be