Jenkins v. Ugene
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:19-cv-01090
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Jenkins v. Ugene, Judge Tostrud accepted a magistrate judge’s recommendation, dismissed the action without prejudice, and denied Jenkins’s fee-waiver application as moot.
The dismissal affects Ardell L. Jenkins’s action against Ugene, Scott, Ayana, and Anoka County Human Service Economic Assistance; the fee-prepayment application was denied as moot.
What happened
Ardell L. Jenkins brought this action against Ugene, Scott, Ayana, and Anoka County Human Service Economic Assistance. The opinion does not explain the underlying allegations or the recommended basis for dismissal.
The court received Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau’s report and recommendation. No party objected, so the court reviewed it for clear error and found none.
Judge Eric C. Tostrud accepted the report and recommendation, dismissed the action without prejudice, and denied Jenkins’s application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs as moot. The court directed that judgment be entered.
The detailed version
- Jenkins v. Ugene · No. 0:19-cv-01090
- Eric Tostrud
- July 1, 2019
Background
The opinion concerns an action brought by Ardell L. Jenkins against Ugene, Scott, Ayana, and Anoka County Human Service Economic Assistance. The order does not describe Jenkins’s claims or the factual allegations.
Report and Recommendation
United States Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau issued a June 11, 2019 report and recommendation. No party filed an objection. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the district court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error. The court found no clear error.
Ruling
Judge Eric C. Tostrud ordered that the report and recommendation be accepted. The court dismissed the action without prejudice, meaning the order did not state that refiling was barred. The court also denied Jenkins’s application to proceed in district court without prepaying fees or costs as moot. The court directed that judgment be entered accordingly.
The opinion does not state why the action was dismissed, so the basis for the dismissal cannot be determined from this text alone.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.