Gordon-Greenwood v. United States of America - Complaint Dismissed
Summary
United States District Judge Jerry W. Blackwell issued an order on February 27, 2026 accepting United States Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins's Report and Recommendation issued January 26, 2026. The court overruled plaintiff's objections, granted defendant Jill A. Brisbois's Motion to Dismiss and the Federal Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, and dismissed plaintiff Kurtis Lavonte Gordon-Greenwood's Complaint in its entirety. The court found plaintiff's objections identified no error of law or fact warranting rejection of the magistrate judge's recommendations.
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff's objections (Doc. No. 44) are OVERRULED; 2. The January 26, 2026 Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 38) is ACCEPTED; 3. Defendant Brisbois's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 14) is GRANTED; 4. The Federal Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 19) is GRANTED; and 5. Plaintiff Kurtis Lavonte Gordon-Greenwood's Complaint (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED.”
About this source
GovPing monitors US District Court DMN Docket Feed for new courts & legal regulatory changes. Every update since tracking began is archived, classified, and available as free RSS or email alerts — 3 changes logged to date.
What changed
The district court overruled plaintiff's objections to the magistrate judge's January 26, 2026 Report and Recommendation and accepted the R&R in full. Both pending motions to dismiss were granted, resulting in dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint with prejudice. The court's review was de novo for objected portions and for clear error for all other portions per 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and D. Minn. LR 72.2(b)(3).
Affected parties in similar cases should note that a magistrate judge's R&R will be accepted when objections fail to identify specific legal or factual errors, and when unreviewed portions are neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. Litigants filing objections in federal court must articulate particularized grounds — general objections that do not identify specific errors are insufficient to trigger de novo review.
Archived snapshot
Apr 24, 2026GovPing captured this document from the original source. If the source has since changed or been removed, this is the text as it existed at that time.
Jump To
Top Caption Trial Court Document
Support FLP
CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.
Please become a member today.
Feb. 27, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note
Kurtis Lavonte Gordon-Greenwood v. United States of America, United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, Douglas L. Micko, Andrew M. Luger, Lisa D. Kirkpatrick, Thomas M. Hollenhorst, Eddie M. Frizell, Donovan W. Frank, Kate M. Fogarty, and Jill A. Brisbois
District Court, D. Minnesota
- Citations: None known
- Docket Number: 0:25-cv-02474
Precedential Status: Unknown Status
Trial Court Document
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Kurtis Lavonte Gordon-Greenwood, Civ. No. 25-2474 (JWB/SGE)
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER ACCEPTING
United States of America, United States REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
District Court for the District of Minnesota, OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Douglas L. Micko, Andrew M. Luger, Lisa
D. Kirkpatrick, Thomas M. Hollenhorst,
Eddie M. Frizell, Donovan W. Frank, Kate
M. Fogarty, and Jill A. Brisbois,
Defendants.
United States Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins issued a Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) on January 26, 2026. (Doc. No. 38.) Plaintiff has filed
objections to the R&R. (Doc. No. 44.)
The portions of the R&R to which Plaintiff objects are reviewed de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1); D. Minn. LR 72.2(b)(3). Any aspect of an R&R to which no
specific objection is made is reviewed for clear error. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Grinder
v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996).
Plaintiff’s objections to the January 26, 2026 R&R have been reviewed. The
objections do not identify any error of law or fact that warrant rejecting the
recommendations in the R&R. And, after carefully reviewing all other portions of the
R&R not specifically objected to, it is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.
Based on the R&R of the Magistrate Judge, and on all the files, records, and
proceedings in this case, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s objections (Doc. No. 44) are OVERRULED;
The January 26, 2026 Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 38) is
ACCEPTED;Defendant Brisbois’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 14) is GRANTED;
The Federal Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 19) is GRANTED;
andPlaintiff Kurtis Lavonte Gordon-Greenwood’s Complaint (Doc. No. 1) is
DISMISSED.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Date: February 27, 2026 s/ Jerry W. Blackwell
JERRY W. BLACKWELL
United States District Judge
Get daily alerts for US District Court DMN Docket Feed
Daily digest delivered to your inbox.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
About this page
Every important government, regulator, and court update from around the world. One place. Real-time. Free. Our mission
Source document text, dates, docket IDs, and authority are extracted directly from US District Court D. Minn..
The summary, classification, recommended actions, deadlines, and penalty information are AI-generated from the original text and may contain errors. Always verify against the source document.
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when US District Court DMN Docket Feed publishes new changes.
Subscribed!
Optional. Filters your digest to exactly the updates that matter to you.