WILLIAMS v. HOLLAREN

Case No. 16-cv-0552 (WMW/SER).

Michael Williams, Plaintiff, v. Bart Hollaren, Dana Feddema, Chad Mitsch, Kristin Lang, and Tessa Ion, Defendants.

United States District Court, D. Minnesota.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Cause: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Michael Williams, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Bart Hollaren, Defendant, represented by Beth A. Stack , Hennepin County Attorney's Office.

Dana Feddema, Defendant, represented by Beth A. Stack , Hennepin County Attorney's Office.

Chad Mitsch, Defendant, represented by Kelly S. Kemp , Minnesota Attorney General's Office.

Lang, Hearing Officer, Defendant, represented by Kelly S. Kemp , Minnesota Attorney General's Office.

Tessa Ion, Defendant, represented by Beth A. Stack , Hennepin County Attorney's Office.


ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

WILHELMINA M. WRIGHT, District Judge.

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.

ORDER

Based on all the files, records and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. The January 11, 2017 Report and Recommendation, (Dkt. 55), is ADOPTED;

2. Plaintiff Michael Williams' motion to amend, (Dkt. 34), is DENIED;

3. The motion to dismiss of Defendants Bart Hollaren, Dana Feddema, and Tessa Ion, (Dkt. 12), is GRANTED;

4. Plaintiff Michael Williams' claims against Defendants Chad Mitsch and Kristin Lang are DISMISSED; and

5. Williams' complaint, (Dkt. 1), is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

6. 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.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases