Bell v. Wilburn
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:18-cv-03117
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 1
In Bell v. Wilburn, Judge Tostrud accepted the recommendation and dismissed Bell’s complaint without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Sabrina Bell’s complaint was dismissed without prejudice; the order ended the matter in this court without deciding the underlying claims.
What happened
In Bell v. Wilburn, the court considered a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. No party objected to the recommendation, so the court reviewed it for clear error.
The court found no clear error and accepted the report and recommendation. It dismissed Sabrina Bell’s complaint without prejudice because the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning authority to decide the case.
Judge Eric C. Tostrud entered the order on December 17, 2018. The opinion does not explain in this order why the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.
The detailed version
- Bell v. Wilburn · No. 0:18-cv-03117
- Eric Tostrud
- Dec. 17, 2018
Background
The court received a November 29, 2018 report and recommendation from United States Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer. The opinion does not describe the factual allegations or legal claims in Sabrina Bell’s complaint.
No party objected to the report and recommendation. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake in the magistrate judge’s findings or conclusions.
Ruling
The court found no clear error and accepted the report and recommendation. It dismissed the complaint without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Subject-matter jurisdiction is the court’s legal authority to hear and decide a case. Because the dismissal was without prejudice, the order did not bar refiling based solely on that disposition.
Disposition
The report and recommendation was accepted, and the complaint was dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Judgment was ordered to be entered accordingly.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.