Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
D. Minn.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 6, 2020

Evenstad v. Klavins

Judge
Eric Tostrud
Docket
0:20-cv-01119
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Evenstad v. Klavins, Judge Tostrud accepted the report, dismissed the action without prejudice, denied permission to proceed without paying fees, and denied appointed counsel.

Who this affects

Thomas Evenstad’s action was dismissed without prejudice. His application to proceed without paying filing fees and his motion for appointment of counsel were denied; the opinion does not make a merits ruling against the named defendants.

What happened

In Evenstad v. Klavins, the court reviewed Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright’s July 7, 2020 Report and Recommendation. No party objected, so the court reviewed it for clear error.

The court found no clear error and accepted the Report and Recommendation. It dismissed the action without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), denied Thomas Evenstad’s application to proceed without paying filing fees, and denied his motion for appointment of counsel.

Judge Eric C. Tostrud entered the order on August 6, 2020. The order does not describe the underlying claims or explain the specific reason for the statutory dismissal.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Evenstad v. Klavins · No. 0:20-cv-01119
Judge
Eric Tostrud
Date
Aug. 6, 2020

Background

Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright issued a Report and Recommendation on July 7, 2020. The opinion states that no party objected to it. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the district court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error.

Rulings

Judge Eric C. Tostrud found no clear error and accepted the Report and Recommendation. The court dismissed the action without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). A dismissal without prejudice does not bar refiling, although the opinion does not explain the specific basis for the dismissal.

The court also denied Thomas Evenstad’s application to proceed without paying filing fees and denied his motion for appointment of counsel. Judgment was ordered to be entered. The opinion does not describe the claims, the parties’ arguments, or the merits of the underlying dispute.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.