Fannie S. v. Dudek
- Jeffrey Bryan
- 0:24-cv-04346
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Fannie S. v. Dudek, Judge Bryan dismissed the action without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction and denied Fannie S.’s fee-waiver application as moot.
Fannie S.’s action was dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, and her application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs was denied as moot. The order resolved the case against Leland Dudek in the district court.
What happened
Fannie S. sued Leland Dudek, Acting Commissioner of Social Security. A magistrate judge recommended dismissing the case because the court lacked jurisdiction and denying Fannie S.’s application to proceed without paying fees as moot.
Neither party objected to that recommendation. The court therefore reviewed it for clear error and found none.
In Fannie S. v. Dudek, Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan adopted the recommendation, denied Fannie S.’s fee-waiver application as moot, and dismissed the action without prejudice.
The detailed version
- Fannie S. v. Dudek · No. 0:24-cv-04346
- Jeffrey M. Bryan
- Mar. 27, 2025
Background
Fannie S., representing herself, filed an action against Leland Dudek, the Acting Commissioner of Social Security. The court considered a Report and Recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster on February 19, 2025.
The recommendation proposed dismissing the complaint without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction and denying Fannie S.’s application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs as moot. Neither party objected within the required time.
Court’s Review and Ruling
Because there were no timely objections, the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake. The court found no clear error and adopted the recommendation.
The court denied Fannie S.’s application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs as moot and dismissed the action without prejudice. A dismissal without prejudice does not bar refiling, although the opinion does not describe any requirements for a future filing.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.