Mays v. Holmes
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:25-cv-02952
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Mays v. Holmes, Judge Menendez dismissed Otis Mays's lawsuit without prejudice because his complaint failed to show the parties were from different states, as required to bring the case in federal court.
Private litigants — particularly plaintiffs who file civil lawsuits in federal court relying on diversity of citizenship as the basis for jurisdiction — who must ensure their complaints clearly allege the citizenship of all parties to satisfy the complete-diversity requirement.
What happened
In Mays v. Holmes (No. 25-cv-2952), plaintiff Otis Mays sued Bernard Holmes and others in federal court in Minnesota. A magistrate judge reviewed the complaint and found it did not adequately show that all parties were citizens of different states — a requirement called 'complete diversity' that must be met for a federal court to hear a civil lawsuit between private parties under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Without that showing, the federal court lacks the power to hear the case.
Mays did not file formal objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation, though he did ask for permission to amend his complaint to fix the problem and requested more time to do so. The magistrate judge denied those requests on September 11, 2025. District Judge Katherine Menendez reviewed the record and found no error in the magistrate judge's analysis.
Judge Menendez accepted the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation and dismissed the case without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. A dismissal without prejudice means Mays is not barred from refiling — but he would need to establish a proper basis for federal court jurisdiction or bring his claims in a different court.
The detailed version
- Mays v. Holmes · No. 0:25-cv-02952
- Katherine Menendez
- Oct. 2, 2025
Background
Plaintiff Otis Mays filed suit against defendant Bernard Holmes and others (collectively "et al.") in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. The complaint sought to invoke federal subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), the diversity-of-citizenship statute, which allows federal courts to hear civil disputes between private parties when the parties are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation
United States Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on August 21, 2025, recommending dismissal without prejudice. Judge Foster concluded that the complaint's allegations failed to establish 'complete diversity' — meaning the complaint did not adequately allege that every plaintiff and every defendant are citizens of different states, as required under § 1332(a). Without complete diversity, the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction (the legal authority to hear the case at all).
Plaintiff's Post-R&R Filings
Mays did not file formal objections to the R&R. After the R&R issued, however, he filed requests for leave to amend his complaint to cure the citizenship allegations and for an extension of time to do so. Judge Foster denied both requests on September 11, 2025. Judge Menendez noted that even if those requests were construed as objections to the R&R, she would overrule them for the reasons stated in Judge Foster's September 11th Order.
Standard of Review
Because no formal objections were filed, Judge Menendez reviewed the R&R under the clear-error standard. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Minn. LR 72.2(b). The court cited Nur v. Olmsted County, 563 F. Supp. 3d 946, 949 (D. Minn. 2021), and Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996), for the proposition that in the absence of objections, only clear error warrants departure from the magistrate judge's recommendation.
Ruling
Judge Menendez found no error — clear or otherwise — in the R&R, accepted it in full, and ordered the case dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. A dismissal without prejudice does not bar refiling, though any refiled action would need to establish a proper basis for federal jurisdiction or be brought in a court of competent jurisdiction.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.