Jackson v. Grand Canyon University Academic Standards
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:19-cv-02350
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 1
In Jackson v. Grand Canton University Academic Standards, Judge Tostrud dismissed Jackson’s complaint without prejudice and denied two motions as moot.
Dana D. Jackson’s complaint was dismissed without prejudice. Her application to proceed without prepaying fees and motion for summons were denied as moot; the order otherwise identifies Grand Canton University Academic Standards and Christal Abron as defendants.
What happened
Dana D. Jackson sued Grand Canton University Academic Standards and Christal Abron. The court considered a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation dated October 25, 2019.
No party objected, so the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or explain why the recommendation proposed dismissal.
Judge Eric C. Tostrud found no clear error, accepted the Report and Recommendation, and dismissed Jackson’s complaint without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The court also denied Jackson’s application to proceed without prepaying fees and motion for summons as moot.
The detailed version
- Jackson v. Grand Canyon University Academic Standards · No. 0:19-cv-02350
- Eric Tostrud
- Nov. 15, 2019
Background
Dana D. Jackson was the plaintiff, and Grand Canton University Academic Standards and Christal Abron were the defendants. The court received an October 25, 2019 Report and Recommendation from United States Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz. The opinion does not state the claims in Jackson’s complaint or the reasons the magistrate judge recommended dismissal.
Review of the Recommendation
No party objected to the Report and Recommendation. The court therefore reviewed it for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake in the recommendation. The court stated that it found no clear error.
Ruling
Judge Eric C. Tostrud ordered three things:
- The Report and Recommendation was accepted.
- Jackson’s complaint was dismissed without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). “Without prejudice” means the dismissal itself does not bar refiling, although the opinion does not discuss any other limits on a new case.
- Jackson’s application to proceed in district court without prepaying fees and her motion for summons were denied as moot, meaning the court considered them no longer requiring a ruling after the complaint was dismissed.
The order does not decide the merits of Jackson’s underlying claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.