Simonetti v. Vasquez
Marisa Simonetti, and Marisa for Minnesota v. Jacklyn Vasquez, Hennepin County, the City of Edina, and all Edina Police Officers involved in Case No. 27-CR-24-14103
- Jerry Blackwell
- 0:25-cv-03390
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Simonetti v. Vasquez, Judge Blackwell accepted a magistrate judge's recommendation and sent the case back to Hennepin County state court, finding no clear error in the recommendation after the plaintiff filed no objections.
Plaintiff Marisa Simonetti, whose federal case is being sent back to Hennepin County state court; defendants Jacklyn Vasquez, Hennepin County, the City of Edina, and Edina Police Officers, whose motion to extend time to respond is denied as moot.
What happened
In Simonetti and Marisa for Minnesota v. Vasquez, Hennepin County, the City of Edina, and all Edina Police Officers involved in Case No. 27-CR-24-14103, the plaintiff originally filed this case in a federal district court in Minnesota. The case relates to an underlying state criminal matter in Hennepin County. United States Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko issued a Report and Recommendation on September 17, 2025, recommending that the case be sent back to state court.
Because the plaintiff did not file any objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation within the allowed time, the court reviewed it only for clear error — a lower level of scrutiny than a full review. The court found no clear error in the Magistrate Judge's analysis.
Judge Blackwell accepted the Report and Recommendation in full, ordering that the case be remanded (sent back) to the Minnesota state District Court in Hennepin County. A separate motion by the defendants to extend their time to respond to the plaintiff's complaint was denied as moot, meaning it no longer needed to be decided because the case is being returned to state court.
The detailed version
This short order by United States District Judge Jerry W. Blackwell in the District of Minnesota, Civil No. 25-3390 (JWB/DLM), resolves a case that had been brought in federal court by plaintiff Marisa Simonetti (also listing 'Marisa for Minnesota' as a plaintiff) against defendants Jacklyn Vasquez, Hennepin County, the City of Edina, and all Edina Police Officers involved in Hennepin County Case No. 27-CR-24-14103.
United States Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on September 17, 2025 (Doc. No. 8), recommending that the action be remanded to the Minnesota state District Court in Hennepin County. The opinion does not detail the factual or legal grounds for the remand recommendation, as the order itself does not reproduce the R&R's reasoning.
No objections to the R&R were filed within the permitted time. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and Eighth Circuit precedent (citing Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996)), the absence of timely objections means the court reviews the R&R only for 'clear error' — a deferential standard under which the court will accept the recommendation unless it finds an obvious mistake. Judge Blackwell found no clear error.
The court issued two dispositive rulings: (1) the R&R was ACCEPTED and the action was REMANDED to the State of Minnesota District Court in Hennepin County; and (2) the defendants' motion to extend time to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint (Doc. No. 9) was DENIED AS MOOT, because remand to state court renders the federal procedural motion unnecessary.
Notably, the opinion does not explain why the case was originally filed in federal court, why the Magistrate Judge recommended remand, or what legal basis (e.g., lack of subject matter jurisdiction, improper removal, or other grounds) supported that recommendation. Readers seeking the full reasoning would need to review the Magistrate Judge's underlying Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 8).
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.