Bewaji v. Rouney
- Jerry Blackwell
- 0:25-cv-02139
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Bewaji v. Rovney, Judge Blackwell overruled objections, accepted the recommendation, dismissed the case without prejudice, denied the request to proceed without paying the filing fee, and ordered payment.
Olabamidele Olumide Bewaji’s complaint was dismissed without prejudice; his application to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront was denied, and he must pay the unpaid $310 statutory filing fee. The order also overruled his objections and accepted the magistrate judge’s recommendation.
What happened
In Bewaji v. Rovney, Olabamidele Olumide Bewaji, representing himself, sued Christopher Rovney and Patrick McDermott, each identified in the caption as a Blue Earth County Attorney sued in individual and official capacities. A magistrate judge recommended dismissing the complaint without prejudice.
Bewaji objected, but the court found that his objections repeated his prosecutorial-misconduct claims and did not identify an error in the recommendation. The court agreed that his claims under a federal civil-rights law were barred because his underlying conviction had not been invalidated, and that the prosecutors would also be protected from suit for presenting the criminal case.
Judge Jerry W. Blackwell overruled the objections, accepted the recommendation, dismissed the matter without prejudice under the federal prisoner-screening statute, denied Bewaji’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront, and ordered him to pay the remaining $310 statutory filing fee.
The detailed version
- Bewaji v. Rouney · No. 0:25-cv-02139
- Jerry W. Blackwell
- July 11, 2025
Background
Olabamidele Olumide Bewaji, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Christopher Rovney and Patrick McDermott. The caption identifies each defendant as a Blue Earth County Attorney sued in both individual and official capacities. Bewaji alleged prosecutorial misconduct. United States Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz recommended dismissing the complaint without prejudice.
Bewaji objected to that recommendation. The district court explained that it reviews specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation independently, while reviewing portions without specific objections for clear error. Because Bewaji was representing himself, the court read his objections liberally.
Court’s Analysis
The court found that Bewaji’s objections merely repeated his underlying prosecutorial-misconduct claims. They did not challenge the recommendation’s reasoning that his claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 were barred by Heck v. Humphrey because his underlying conviction had not been invalidated. The court also agreed that, even if that rule did not apply, the prosecutors would be immune from suit for their conduct in presenting the criminal case against Bewaji.
After reviewing the rest of the recommendation, the court found it neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law and accepted it in its entirety.
Ruling
Judge Jerry W. Blackwell ordered the following:
- Bewaji’s objections were overruled. - The magistrate judge’s June 6, 2025 Report and Recommendation was accepted. - The matter was dismissed without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), the statute requiring screening of certain prisoner complaints. - Bewaji’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront was denied. - Bewaji was required to pay the unpaid $310 statutory filing fee in the manner required by federal law, and the Clerk of Court was directed to notify the authorities at the institution where he was confined.
The order directed that judgment be entered.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.