Colbert v. Schnell
Leneil James Colbert, Jr. v. Paul Schnell, Mark Koderick, Diane Reineccius, and John Melvin
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:25-cv-04652
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Colbert v. Schnell, Judge Menendez dismissed some claims with and others without prejudice, dismissed the contract claim without prejudice, and denied fee-waiver status as moot.
Leneil James Colbert, Jr. and defendants Paul Schnell, Mark Koderick, Diane Reineccius, and John Melvin.
What happened
In Leneil James Colbert, Jr. v. Paul Schnell, Mark Koderick, Diane Reineccius, and John Melvin, the complaint purported to assert claims under the Fourteenth Amendment, the First Amendment, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, and state contract law.
The court reviewed a magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss the case after Colbert filed no objections. It found no obvious error in that recommendation and adopted it.
Judge Katherine Menendez dismissed the procedural-due-process claim with prejudice, dismissed the First Amendment and Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act claims without prejudice, and dismissed the state contract claim without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. The court also denied Colbert’s application to proceed without paying filing fees as moot.
The detailed version
- Colbert v. Schnell · No. 0:25-cv-04652
- Katherine Menendez
- May 4, 2026
Background
The court reviewed a report and recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright. The magistrate judge recommended dismissing the action and denying as moot Leneil James Colbert, Jr.’s application to proceed without paying filing fees. Colbert did not object by the stated deadline.
Because there were no objections, the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake. The court found no error and adopted the recommendation.
Claims and Rulings
The court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, a statute requiring screening of certain complaints filed by people who are incarcerated or otherwise subject to the statute, for failure to state a claim:
- The Fourteenth Amendment procedural-due-process claim was dismissed with prejudice. - The First Amendment retaliation claim and the claims under the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act were dismissed without prejudice. - The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law breach-of-contract claim and dismissed that claim without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. - Colbert’s application to proceed without paying filing fees was denied as moot.
Disposition
Judge Katherine Menendez ordered judgment to be entered accordingly. The opinion does not describe the factual allegations underlying the claims beyond the categories of claims identified in the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.