Johnson v. Sullivan
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:23-cv-02249
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Johnson v. Sullivan, Judge Menendez dismissed the case with prejudice after granting defendant's motion for sanctions against plaintiff Paul Edward Johnson for failing to engage in the litigation.
Plaintiff Paul Edward Johnson, whose case has been permanently dismissed with prejudice. Litigants who fail to participate in their own lawsuits risk dismissal and sanctions.
What happened
In Johnson v. Sullivan (Case No. 23-CV-2249), Paul Edward Johnson filed a lawsuit against Ryan Sullivan in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The defendant, Ryan Sullivan, filed a motion for sanctions, arguing that Johnson had failed to participate in the litigation. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois, who issued a Report and Recommendation on April 3, 2025, recommending that the sanctions motion be granted and the case be dismissed.
Johnson did not file any objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation within the allowed time, and the record shows he had not been actively participating in the case for many months. Because no objections were filed, the district court reviewed the Report and Recommendation only for clear error — a lower level of scrutiny than the full review it would apply if objections had been raised. The court found no error in the Magistrate Judge's analysis.
Judge Katherine M. Menendez accepted the Report and Recommendation in full and issued a ruling on August 13, 2025. She granted the defendant's motion for sanctions and dismissed the entire case with prejudice, meaning Johnson cannot refile the same lawsuit in the future. Judgment was ordered to be entered accordingly.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. Sullivan · No. 0:23-cv-02249
- Katherine Menendez
- Aug. 13, 2025
Background
Plaintiff Paul Edward Johnson filed this lawsuit against Defendant Ryan Sullivan in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims in the lawsuit, only the procedural posture leading to dismissal.
The Report and Recommendation
The matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois, who issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on April 3, 2025. The R&R recommended granting Defendant's Motion for Sanctions (docket entry 42) and dismissing the action with prejudice. The R&R noted — and the district court confirmed — that Johnson had not meaningfully engaged with the litigation for many months.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and District of Minnesota Local Rule 72.2(b), parties may object to an R&R within a specified time period, triggering de novo (fresh, full) review of any objected-to portion. Where no objections are filed, the district court reviews the R&R only for clear error — a more deferential standard.
Ruling
Johnson filed no objections to the R&R. Applying the clear-error standard, Judge Menendez found that Magistrate Judge Brisbois committed no error, clear or otherwise. She accepted the R&R in full and entered the following orders:
1. Defendant's Motion for Sanctions (ECF 42) is GRANTED. 2. The action is DISMISSED with prejudice — meaning Johnson is barred from refiling this same lawsuit.
Key Procedural Points
- The sanctions motion was granted, though the opinion does not specify the type of sanction imposed beyond dismissal of the action. The underlying basis for sanctions (e.g., failure to participate in discovery, failure to prosecute) is not detailed in this order; those details would be found in the R&R itself, which is not reproduced here. - Dismissal with prejudice is a final judgment on the merits, foreclosing any future filing of the same claims. - Because Johnson did not object to the R&R, he may have waived certain arguments on appeal. The opinion does not address this point explicitly.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.