From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S., ex rel Sammarco v. Ludeman

United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Feb 25, 2010
Civil No. 09-0880 (JRT/JJK) (D. Minn. Feb. 25, 2010)

Summary

dismissing unfounded criticisms of a magistrate judge as not providing any basis for relief

Summary of this case from Prewitt v. Reiser

Opinion

Civil No. 09-0880 (JRT/JJK).

February 25, 2010


ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION


The above matter comes before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Jeffrey J. Keyes dated January 28, 2010 [Docket No. 165]. No objections have been filed to that Report and Recommendation in the time period permitted.

Based upon the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, upon all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, the Court now makes and enters the following Order.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant Andrew Residence's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 41), is GRANTED;

2. Defendant Tom Mullon's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 45 and No. 52), is GRANTED;

3. Defendant Jane Morrow's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 56), is GRANTED;

4. Defendant Daniel Dauth's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 111), is GRANTED;

5. Defendant Karen Foy's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 95), is GRANTED;

6. Defendant Derrinda Mitchell's Motion to Dismiss Pleadings and/or for a More Definite Statement (Doc. No. 138), is GRANTED;

7. Plaintiff's remaining claims against Defendants Cal Ludeman, as Minnesota Commissioner of Department of Human Services, Dr. Jonathan Uecker, Dr. James H. Gilbertson, and Conservator Tracy Allen, designee for Professional Fiduciaries, Inc., are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute;

8. Defendants Daniel Dauth. Andrew Residence, and Karen Foy's oral request for a sanction on Plaintiff's filing of future related cases ( See Doc. No. 153 (noting oral request at the January 8, 2010 hearing)), is GRANTED to the extent that Plaintiff be prohibited from filing future cases relating to the commitment of her daughter unless she is represented by counsel or obtains pre-authorization from a judge of this Court;

9. The remaining pending motions (Doc. Nos. 125, 127, 128, 133, 134, 142, 144, 146, and 148), are DENIED; and

10. This matter is DISMISSED in its entirety.

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.


Summaries of

U.S., ex rel Sammarco v. Ludeman

United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Feb 25, 2010
Civil No. 09-0880 (JRT/JJK) (D. Minn. Feb. 25, 2010)

dismissing unfounded criticisms of a magistrate judge as not providing any basis for relief

Summary of this case from Prewitt v. Reiser

dismissing unfounded criticisms of a magistrate judge as not providing any basis for relief

Summary of this case from Perry v. Bos. Scientific Family

dismissing unfounded criticisms of a magistrate judge as not providing any basis for relief

Summary of this case from Wedington v. Holder
Case details for

U.S., ex rel Sammarco v. Ludeman

Case Details

Full title:United States of America, ex rel Darlene C. Sammarco, Plaintiff, v. Cal…

Court:United States District Court, D. Minnesota

Date published: Feb 25, 2010

Citations

Civil No. 09-0880 (JRT/JJK) (D. Minn. Feb. 25, 2010)

Citing Cases

Wedington v. Holder

(Objections at 3.) Wedington has failed to identify any "personal bias or prejudice arising from an…

Snelling v. Haynes

As such, section 1654 protects the right of self-representation in federal court, not state court. See…