Court, Explained
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Back to docket
Substantive rulingFiled Aug. 4, 2025

Amos v. Kelly

Judge
Jerry Blackwell
Docket
0:22-cv-02108
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureSummary JudgmentSection 1983Civil Rights
In one sentence

In Amos v. Kelly, Judge Blackwell granted summary judgment (a ruling that ends a case without a full trial) in favor of defendants Ryan Kelly and Kurtis Schoonover, dismissing all of plaintiff Howard W. Amos's claims with prejudice, meaning Amos cannot refile them.

Who this affects

Plaintiff Howard W. Amos, whose lawsuit against defendants Ryan Kelly and Kurtis Schoonover has been permanently dismissed. The defendants, who are sued in both individual and official capacities, prevail on all claims.

What happened

In Amos v. Kelly (Case No. 22-2108), plaintiff Howard W. Amos sued defendants Ryan Kelly and Kurtis Schoonover in their individual and official capacities. The case was referred to a magistrate judge, who issued a Report and Recommendation on July 15, 2025, recommending that the defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted. Amos did not file any objections to that recommendation within the allowed time.

Because no objections were filed, the court reviewed the magistrate judge's recommendation only for clear error — a more limited review than if objections had been raised. The court found no clear error in the magistrate judge's analysis and accepted the recommendation in full.

Judge Jerry W. Blackwell, a United States District Judge in the District of Minnesota, adopted the Report and Recommendation, granted the defendants' Amended Motion for Summary Judgment, and dismissed all claims against Ryan Kelly and Kurtis Schoonover with prejudice. A dismissal with prejudice means Amos cannot bring these same claims against these defendants again. The entire action is now closed.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

This order, issued August 4, 2025 by United States District Judge Jerry W. Blackwell of the District of Minnesota, resolves Amos v. Kelly, Civil No. 22-2108.

Background and Procedural Posture

Plaintiff Howard W. Amos filed suit against defendants Ryan Kelly and Kurtis Schoonover, both sued in their individual and official capacities. The opinion does not describe the underlying facts or legal theories in detail, as this order functions solely as a ruling on a dispositive motion following a magistrate judge's recommendation.

Magistrate Judge Proceedings

United States Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on July 15, 2025 (Doc. No. 119), recommending that defendants' Amended Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 91) be granted. Summary judgment is a procedural mechanism under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 by which a court can resolve a case without a trial when there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Standard of Review

Because Amos filed no objections to the R&R within the permitted time, Judge Blackwell reviewed the R&R only for 'clear error,' citing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996). Clear error review is a deferential standard, meaning the district court will not disturb the magistrate's recommendation unless it is plainly wrong. No clear error was found.

Ruling

Judge Blackwell accepted the R&R, granted defendants' Amended Motion for Summary Judgment, and dismissed all claims against Ryan Kelly and Kurtis Schoonover with prejudice. A dismissal with prejudice is a final judgment on the merits that bars Amos from refiling these claims. The entire action is dismissed with prejudice and judgment is to be entered accordingly.

Note on Substance

The order itself does not describe the factual background, the nature of the claims, or the legal reasoning supporting the grant of summary judgment. Those details would be found in the underlying R&R (Doc. No. 119), which is not reproduced here.

Reviewer note from the AI+
The opinion is a short order accepting an R&R and does not describe the underlying facts, claims, or legal theories. The topic tags 'section-1983' and 'civil-rights' are inferred from the caption structure (individual and official capacity defendants, which is typical of Section 1983 civil rights suits) but are not explicitly stated in this order. A reviewer should check the underlying R&R (Doc. No. 119) or docket to confirm the nature of the claims and adjust topic tags if needed. Self-confidence is reduced accordingly.
The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.