Evangelista v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

Background

Wayne Evangelista filed a petition or complaint against the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and the Warden of F.P.C. Duluth, a federal prison camp located in Duluth, Minnesota. The precise nature of his underlying claims is not detailed in this order; the order concerns only the procedural disposition of the case.

Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation

United States Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on January 20, 2026, recommending that the court dismiss the action without prejudice. The R&R identified two grounds for dismissal:

1. Mootness under Rule 12(b)(1): Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) allows dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction — the court's fundamental authority to hear the case. A case is moot when the dispute is no longer a live controversy, meaning the court cannot grant meaningful relief. The R&R concluded the case had become moot on this basis.

2. Failure to state a claim: This is a separate, independent ground under which a court may dismiss a complaint if the petitioner's allegations, even if true, do not establish a legally recognized claim.

Both grounds were cited in support of dismissal without prejudice, meaning the dismissal would not bar Evangelista from refiling if the deficiencies could be corrected.

No Objections Filed

Neither Evangelista nor the government objected to the R&R within the time allowed under District of Minnesota Local Rule 72.2(b)(1). When no party files a timely objection to a magistrate judge's R&R, the district court reviews it only for clear error — a more deferential standard than the de novo (fresh, independent) review that applies when objections are raised. The court cited Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996), as authority for this standard.

Court's Ruling

Judge Bryan found no clear error in the R&R and adopted it in full. The court:

- Adopted the R&R (Doc. No. 32); - Granted the defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 22); and - Dismissed the action without prejudice.

Judgment was ordered to be entered accordingly.

Notes on Scope

This order does not describe the underlying facts of Evangelista's claims, the specific legal theories he advanced, or the details of why the Magistrate Judge concluded the case was moot. Those details would be found in the R&R itself (Doc. No. 32), which is not reproduced here.