Horswell v. REM River Bluffs and Wade Welper
- Jerry Blackwell
- 0:25-cv-04507
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Phillip Horswell v. REM River Bluffs, Judge Blackwell dismissed the complaint without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction and denied the fee-waiver application as moot.
Phillip Horswell’s complaint was dismissed without prejudice because the court found it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. His application to proceed without paying filing fees was denied as moot. REM River Bluffs and Wade Welper were the defendants named in the dismissed case.
What happened
Phillip Horswell sued REM River Bluffs and Wade Welper. The opinion does not describe the claims or explain why the court lacked power to hear them.
Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty recommended dismissing the complaint. No one objected within the permitted time, so the district court reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none.
Judge Jerry W. Blackwell accepted the recommendation, dismissed Horswell’s complaint without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and denied his application to proceed without paying filing fees as moot.
The detailed version
- Horswell v. REM River Bluffs and Wade Welper · No. 0:25-cv-04507
- Jerry W. Blackwell
- Jan. 12, 2026
Background
United States Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty issued a Report and Recommendation on December 11, 2025. The opinion does not state the claims in Phillip Horswell’s complaint or explain the specific reason the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the legal power to hear the case.
No objections to the recommendation were filed within the permitted time. Under the stated procedure, the district court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error. The court found no clear error.
Ruling
Judge Jerry W. Blackwell accepted the December 11, 2025 Report and Recommendation. The court dismissed Horswell’s complaint without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also denied Horswell’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning his application to proceed without paying the required filing fees, as moot. The order directed that judgment be entered accordingly.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.