Gordon-Greenwood v. United States of America
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
- Jerry Blackwell
- 0:25-cv-02474
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Gordon-Greenwood v. United States of America et al., Judge Jerry W. Blackwell dismissed the entire lawsuit filed by Kurtis Lavonte Gordon-Greenwood against the United States and several federal judges and officials, overruling the plaintiff's objections and accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation to grant all motions to dismiss.
Kurtis Lavonte Gordon-Greenwood, the plaintiff, whose entire lawsuit has been dismissed. The named defendants — including several federal judges and officials — prevailed on their motions to dismiss.
What happened
In Gordon-Greenwood v. United States of America et al. (Case No. 25-2474), plaintiff Kurtis Lavonte Gordon-Greenwood sued the United States, the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, and a number of federal judges and officials — including 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 — in federal court in Minnesota. The defendants filed motions asking the court to dismiss the case, and a magistrate judge (a lower-level federal judicial officer who assists district judges) issued a report recommending that those motions be granted. Gordon-Greenwood objected to that recommendation.
The presiding judge reviewed the parts of the recommendation that Gordon-Greenwood specifically challenged from scratch (called "de novo" review), and reviewed the remaining parts for obvious error. After reviewing both the objections and the full recommendation, the court found that the objections did not identify any legal or factual error that would justify departing from the magistrate judge's recommendation, and that the unchallenged portions were not clearly wrong.
Judge Jerry W. Blackwell overruled the plaintiff's objections, accepted the magistrate judge's January 26, 2026 report and recommendation in full, and granted both motions to dismiss — one brought by defendant Brisbois and one brought by the other federal defendants. The entire complaint filed by Kurtis Lavonte Gordon-Greenwood was dismissed. The order directs that judgment be entered accordingly, meaning the case is formally closed at the district court level.
The detailed version
Case: Kurtis Lavonte Gordon-Greenwood v. United States of America et al., Civ. No. 25-2474 (JWB/SGE), United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. Presiding Judge: Jerry W. Blackwell, United States District Judge. Magistrate Judge: Shannon G. Elkins.
Background: Plaintiff Kurtis Lavonte Gordon-Greenwood filed a complaint (Doc. No. 1) against the United States of America, the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, and eight named individuals — 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 — who appear from their listing alongside the federal court to be federal judges or officials. The underlying substance of the complaint is not described in this order.
Procedural Posture: Defendant Brisbois filed a Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 14), and the remaining federal defendants filed a separate Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 19). Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on January 26, 2026 (Doc. No. 38), recommending that both motions be granted. Gordon-Greenwood filed objections to the R&R (Doc. No. 44).
Standard of Review: Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and District of Minnesota Local Rule 72.2(b)(3), portions of an R&R to which a party specifically objects are reviewed de novo (fresh, independent review by the district judge). Portions not specifically objected to are reviewed only for clear error, per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996).
Rulings:
- Plaintiff's objections (Doc. No. 44) — OVERRULED. The court found the objections did not identify any error of law or fact warranting rejection of the R&R.
- January 26, 2026 R&R (Doc. No. 38) — ACCEPTED in full. The court also found the non-objected-to portions neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.
- Defendant Brisbois's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 14) — GRANTED.
- Federal Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 19) — GRANTED.
- Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. No. 1) — DISMISSED. The order does not specify whether the dismissal is with or without prejudice.
The order directs that judgment be entered accordingly, formally closing the case at the district court level.
Note: The opinion is a short adoption order and does not describe the factual allegations in the complaint, the legal grounds for dismissal, or whether the dismissal is with or without prejudice. Readers seeking the reasoning behind the dismissal would need to consult the January 26, 2026 Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 38).
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.