King v. Hennepin County Jail
- Jeffrey Bryan
- 0:24-cv-02431
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In King v. Hennepin County Jail, Judge Bryan adopted the recommendation, denied King’s fee waiver, and dismissed the action without prejudice.
Aaron Scott King’s action was dismissed without prejudice, and his application to proceed without paying filing fees was denied. The order also adopted the recommendation concerning the defendants named in the action.
What happened
In King v. Hennepin County Jail, the court reviewed a magistrate judge’s recommendation concerning Aaron Scott King’s request to proceed without paying filing fees. The recommendation said King’s complaint did not state a viable claim for relief.
King did not object to the recommendation. The court therefore reviewed it for clear error and found none.
Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan adopted the recommendation, denied King’s application to proceed without paying filing fees, and dismissed the action without prejudice, meaning the order did not bar refiling.
The detailed version
- King v. Hennepin County Jail · No. 0:24-cv-02431
- Jeffrey M. Bryan
- Oct. 24, 2024
Background
Aaron Scott King filed a complaint against Hennepin County Jail and other named and partially identified defendants. He also applied to proceed without paying filing fees. United States Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster issued a Report and Recommendation dated July 16, 2024.
Recommendation and Review
The magistrate judge concluded that King’s complaint failed to state a viable claim for relief. The recommendation therefore called for dismissal of the action and denial of King’s application to proceed without paying filing fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). King did not object.
Because there were no timely objections, the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error. The court found no clear error and adopted the recommendation.
Ruling
Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan ordered that the Report and Recommendation be adopted, King’s application to proceed without paying filing fees be denied, and the action be dismissed without prejudice. The order does not state that the court decided the underlying allegations on their merits.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.