Semler v. Johnston
- Jerry Blackwell
- 0:24-cv-01850
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Semler v. Johnston, Judge Blackwell dismissed Semler’s complaint without prejudice, denied his other requests as moot, and entered judgment.
Raymond L. Semler’s complaint and requests for injunctive and declaratory relief were affected. His application to proceed without paying filing fees was also denied as moot. The defendants were named in the dismissed action.
What happened
In Semler v. Johnston, Raymond L. Semler sued Nancy Johnston, Brian Ninneman, and Marc Zika. The court reviewed a magistrate judge’s recommendation after no one filed objections.
The court found no clear error, accepted the recommendation, and dismissed Semler’s complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim. This means the dismissal did not bar him from refiling the complaint. The court also denied as moot his requests for injunctive and declaratory relief and his application to proceed without paying filing fees.
Judge Jerry W. Blackwell entered the order on July 9, 2024, and directed that judgment be entered.
The detailed version
- Semler v. Johnston · No. 0:24-cv-01850
- Jerry W. Blackwell
- July 9, 2024
Background
Raymond L. Semler sued Nancy Johnston, Brian Ninneman, and Marc Zika in their individual and official capacities. The opinion does not describe the specific allegations in the complaint.
United States Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung issued a Report and Recommendation on May 29, 2024. No objections were filed within the permitted time. The district court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake.
Ruling
The court found no clear error and accepted the magistrate judge’s recommendation. It dismissed Semler’s complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim. The order also denied as moot Semler’s requests for injunctive and declaratory relief and his application to proceed without paying filing fees. The court directed that judgment be entered.
The order’s numbered list refers to the accepted Report and Recommendation as dated May 29, 2023, while the preceding text identifies it as dated May 29, 2024.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.