Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 1, 2024

Kalombo v. Matthew

Judge
Paul Magnuson
Docket
0:24-cv-01980
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

Kalombo v. Matthew: Judge Magnuson dismissed the case without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction and denied the fee-waiver application as moot.

Who this affects

Pierre Kalombo’s case was dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and his application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs was denied as moot. The defendants were not subjected to a merits ruling in this order.

What happened

In Kalombo v. Matthew, Pierre Kalombo sued Matthew, identified as the warden at Kandiyohi County Jail, and the Kandiyohi County Jail. The court considered a magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss the case for lack of authority to hear it.

The court reviewed the recommendation and found no error. It adopted the recommendation and dismissed the case without prejudice, meaning the dismissal did not bar refiling. The court also denied Kalombo’s application to proceed without paying court fees because the dismissal made that application moot, or no longer necessary to decide.

Judge Paul A. Magnuson entered the order on August 1, 2024. The order directed that judgment be entered accordingly.

The detailed version

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

Case
Kalombo v. Matthew · No. 0:24-cv-01980
Judge
Paul Magnuson
Date
Aug. 1, 2024

Background

Pierre Kalombo brought this matter against Matthew, identified as the warden at Kandiyohi County Jail, and the Kandiyohi County Jail. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or explain why the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.

Report and Recommendation

United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois issued a Report and Recommendation dated July 1, 2024. It recommended dismissing the matter without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). Subject-matter jurisdiction is the court’s legal authority to hear a case.

The district court stated that it had reviewed the recommendation and found no error, clear or otherwise, in the magistrate judge’s reasoning. The opinion describes the standards for reviewing objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation but does not state whether Kalombo filed specific objections.

Ruling

The court adopted the Report and Recommendation and dismissed the matter without prejudice. It also denied Kalombo’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs as moot. The court directed that judgment be entered accordingly.

Disposition

  1. The Report and Recommendation was adopted.
  2. The matter was dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
  3. Kalombo’s application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs was denied as moot.
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.