Muhammad v. United States
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:19-cv-01750
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 1
In Muhammad v. United States (FTCA), Judge Tostrud denied a fee-extension motion and dismissed the complaint without prejudice under Rule 41(b).
The order affected Abdul-Aziz Rashid Muhammad’s complaint and his motion for additional time to pay the filing fee; the United States was the defendant.
What happened
Abdul-Aziz Rashid Muhammad sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The court received a magistrate judge’s recommendation and noted that no party objected to it.
The court found no clear error, accepted the recommendation, denied Muhammad’s motion for more time to pay the filing fee, and dismissed his complaint without prejudice under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Judge Eric C. Tostrud entered the January 28, 2020 order. Because the dismissal was without prejudice, the order did not bar refiling the complaint.
The detailed version
- Muhammad v. United States · No. 0:19-cv-01750
- Eric Tostrud
- Jan. 28, 2020
Background
The court received a January 9, 2020 report and recommendation from United States Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz. The opinion states that no party objected to the recommendation.
Court’s review
Because there were no objections, the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake in the recommendation. The court found no clear error based on the files, records, and proceedings in the case.
Ruling
The court accepted the report and recommendation. It denied Abdul-Aziz Rashid Muhammad’s motion for an extension of time to pay the filing fee and dismissed his complaint without prejudice under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.