Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 8, 2025

Myers v. Kleffman

Judge
Jeffrey Bryan
Docket
0:24-cv-03890
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Myers v. Kleffman, Judge Bryan adopted the recommendation, dismissed the action without prejudice, and denied the fee-waiver application as moot.

Who this affects

Tricia Myers’s action against Adam Kleffman, Jane Doe, John Doe, and St. Louis County was dismissed without prejudice. Myers’s application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs was denied as moot.

What happened

In Myers v. Kleffman, the court reviewed a magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss the action under a federal screening law and to deny Tricia Myers’s application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs.

Neither party objected to the recommendation by the deadline. The court therefore reviewed it for clear error and found none.

Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan adopted the recommendation, denied the fee-waiver application as moot, and dismissed the action without prejudice, meaning the order did not bar refiling.

The detailed version

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

Case
Myers v. Kleffman · No. 0:24-cv-03890
Judge
Jeffrey M. Bryan
Date
Jan. 8, 2025

Background

The court considered a November 19, 2024 Report and Recommendation by United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois. The recommendation advised dismissing the action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and denying Tricia Myers’s application to proceed in district court without prepaying fees or costs as moot.

Court’s review

Neither party objected to the Report and Recommendation, and the deadline for objections had passed. Because there were no timely objections, the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake. The court found no clear error.

Ruling

Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan adopted the Report and Recommendation. The court denied the application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs as moot and dismissed the action without prejudice. The opinion does not explain the underlying claims or the specific reason for dismissal under Section 1915(e)(2).

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.