Schultz v. 3M Company and Solventum Company
- Jeffrey Bryan
- 0:25-cv-03223
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 1
In Schultz v. 3M Company, Judge Bryan dismissed Larry G. Schultz's complaint without prejudice, adopting a magistrate judge's recommendation.
Plaintiffs who file lawsuits without a lawyer (pro se litigants), particularly those seeking fee waivers, who may have their cases dismissed if they fail to object to a magistrate judge's adverse recommendation within the required time period.
What happened
In Schultz v. 3M Company and Solventum Company (Case No. 25-cv-3223), plaintiff Larry G. Schultz filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota against 3M Company and Solventum Company. Schultz also asked the court for permission to proceed without paying court filing fees (known as proceeding 'in forma pauperis,' or at no cost to him).
Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins reviewed the case and issued a Report and Recommendation suggesting that the complaint be dismissed and that Schultz's fee-waiver request be denied. Schultz did not file any objections to that recommendation within the required time period, meaning the presiding judge reviewed it only for obvious ('clear') errors.
Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan found no clear error in Magistrate Judge Elkins's Report and Recommendation and adopted it in full. The case was dismissed without prejudice — meaning Schultz is not permanently barred from refiling — and his request to proceed without paying fees was denied as moot (no longer relevant because the case was dismissed).
The detailed version
- Schultz v. 3M Company and Solventum Company · No. 0:25-cv-03223
- Jeffrey M. Bryan
- Oct. 28, 2025
Background
Plaintiff Larry G. Schultz filed a complaint (the initial court filing stating his claims) against 3M Company and Solventum Company in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. Schultz simultaneously filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) — a request to waive the court's filing fees based on financial inability to pay.
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation
The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins, who issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) recommending two actions: (1) dismissal of the complaint without prejudice, and (2) denial of Schultz's IFP motion. The opinion does not describe the substantive grounds for the R&R's recommendation beyond these dispositions.
Absence of Objections and Standard of Review
Under District of Minnesota Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), a party has a set time period to file objections to a magistrate judge's R&R. Schultz did not file any timely objections. When no objections are filed, the presiding district judge reviews the R&R only for 'clear error' under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), a significantly deferential standard compared to the de novo (fresh, independent) review that would apply if objections had been filed. The court cited Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996) as authority for this standard.
Ruling
Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan found no clear error in Magistrate Judge Elkins's R&R and adopted it in full. The court ordered three things: (1) the R&R is adopted; (2) the action is dismissed without prejudice — meaning Schultz retains the ability to refile his claims (subject to applicable statutes of limitations and other legal requirements); and (3) the IFP motion is denied as moot, meaning the request is rendered irrelevant by the dismissal of the case itself. The court directed that judgment be entered accordingly.
What Is Not in the Opinion
The opinion does not describe the substance of Schultz's claims, the legal theories he advanced, or the specific reasons the magistrate judge recommended dismissal. Because the order is a short adopting order, those details — if available — would appear in the underlying R&R, which is not reproduced here.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.