Garwood v. Minnesota State Patrol
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:24-cv-00800
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
Garwood v. Minnesota State Patrol: Judge Menendez dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice after screening and denied the fee-waiver application as moot.
The order ended Rick Lee Garwood’s lawsuit against the Minnesota State Patrol, Nick Otterson, Morrison County Jail, Morrison County Attorney’s Office, and the State of Minnesota, and denied his application to proceed without prepaying the filing fee as moot.
What happened
Rick Lee Garwood sued the Minnesota State Patrol, Nick Otterson, Morrison County Jail, Morrison County Attorney’s Office, and the State of Minnesota. A magistrate judge recommended dismissing the lawsuit under a federal prisoner-screening law, finding that the claims failed as a matter of law.
Garwood did not object to the recommendation or otherwise participate in the case. After reviewing the recommendation and the record for clear error, the court found no error.
Judge Katherine M. Menendez ordered the matter dismissed with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court also denied Garwood’s application to proceed without prepaying the filing fee as moot.
The detailed version
- Garwood v. Minnesota State Patrol · No. 0:24-cv-00800
- Katherine Menendez
- Sept. 13, 2024
Background
Rick Lee Garwood brought this lawsuit against the Minnesota State Patrol, Nick Otterson, Morrison County Jail, Morrison County Attorney’s Office, and the State of Minnesota. The opinion does not describe the specific claims.
United States Magistrate Judge Leo Brisbois issued a Report and Recommendation on May 3, 2024. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires courts to screen certain lawsuits filed by people in custody, the magistrate judge recommended dismissing Garwood’s lawsuit with prejudice because the claims failed as a matter of law for several reasons.
Objections and Review
Garwood initially had until May 17, 2024, to object to the recommendation. The court extended the deadline to July 11, 2024, after it appeared that Garwood might not have received the recommendation because he had been released from custody. The court sent the recommendation to his new address. Garwood did not file objections and did not otherwise participate in the litigation.
Because there were no objections, the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake. After reviewing the recommendation and the record, the court found no error, clear or otherwise.
Ruling
Judge Katherine M. Menendez ordered that the matter be dismissed with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The order also denied Garwood’s application to proceed without prepaying the filing fee as moot. The court directed that judgment be entered.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.