govinfo:USCOURTS-mnd-0_23-cv-01998-1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA 
 
Remona Lysa Brown, 
 
 Petitioner, 
 
v. 
 
Kathy Halvorson, Warden,  
 
 Respondent. 
Civ. No. 23-1998 (PAM/ECW) 
 
 
 
                                                    ORDER 
 
             
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of 
United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright dated April 3, 2026.  (Docket 
No. 13.)  The R&R recommends denying Petitioner Remona Lysa Brown’s Motion to 
Reopen Case and Motion to Consider a Medical Eye Exam.  According to statute, the Court 
must conduct a de novo review of any portion of the R&R to which specific objections are 
made.  28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); D. Minn. LR 72.2(b).  Brown filed 
timely objections to the R&R.  (Docket No. 14.)  After conducting the required review and 
for the following reasons, the Court adopts the R&R.   
The full background is set forth in the R&R and the Court will not revisit it here.  In 
her objections to the R&R, Brown agrees with the R&R’s description of her claims, stating, 
“I did assert everything United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright has stated 
and it’s all true.”   (Id. at 4.)  Brown further agrees that Judge Wright is “right” that Brown 
did not claim that her vision problems “had any relationship” to the entry of judgment in 
this case in 2023.  (Id.)  Indeed, Judge Wright concluded that relief is not warranted in this 
matter because Brown’s impaired eyesight and the alleged delay in receiving medical 
CASE 0:23-cv-01998-PAM-ECW     Doc. 16     Filed 06/09/26     Page 1 of 2
2 
 
treatment “ have no bearing on” the petition Brown filed in this case.  (R&R at 13.)  
Therefore, the R&R recommended denying Brown’s Motions.  Although Brown disagrees 
with the R&R’s ultimate conclusion that relief is not warranted under Rule 60(b)(6), she 
provides no legal basis supporting her view.  The Court finds no error in the Magistrate 
Judge’s reasoning, and adopts the R&R. 
Accordingly,  IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 
1. The Court ADOPTS the R&R (Docket No. 13);  
2. Petitioner Remona Lysa Brown’s Motion to Reopen Case (Docket No. 9) and 
Motion to Consider a Medical Eye Exam (Docket No. 11) are DENIED; and 
3. Petitioner’s Motion to Amend (Docket No. 15) is DENIED as moot. 
Dated: June 8, 2026 
 
s/ Paul A. Magnuson   
Paul A. Magnuson 
United States District Court Judge 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE 0:23-cv-01998-PAM-ECW     Doc. 16     Filed 06/09/26     Page 2 of 2

Passage view · GavelSight