Quinn v. Justice Department Office of Civil Right
- Wilhelmina Wright
- 0:20-cv-01774
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Quinn v. Justice Department Office of Civil Rights, Judge Wright dismissed the case without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction and denied Quinn’s fee-waiver application as moot.
Andrew Quinn’s case was dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. The order also denied Quinn’s application to proceed without paying filing fees as moot; the opinion names the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, Justice Department Office of Civil Rights, and Regions Hospital as defendants.
What happened
In Andrew Quinn v. the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, Justice Department Office of Civil Rights, and Regions Hospital, the court considered a magistrate judge’s recommendation concerning Quinn’s case.
No party timely objected to the recommendation. The court therefore reviewed it for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake, and found none. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or explain the jurisdictional problem in more detail.
Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright adopted the recommendation and dismissed the matter without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. The court also denied Quinn’s application to proceed without paying filing fees as moot.
The detailed version
- Quinn v. Justice Department Office of Civil Right · No. 0:20-cv-01774
- Wilhelmina Wright
- Dec. 21, 2020
Background
The defendants were the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, the Justice Department Office of Civil Rights, and Regions Hospital. The opinion does not state the factual basis of Andrew Quinn’s claims.
Report and Recommendation
United States Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer issued a September 11, 2020 Report and Recommendation. Because there were no timely objections, the district court reviewed the recommendation for clear error under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). The court found no clear error.
Ruling
The court adopted the Report and Recommendation. It dismissed the matter without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. It also denied Quinn’s application to proceed without paying filing fees as moot, meaning the court determined that the application no longer required a ruling in light of the dismissal.
The opinion does not provide additional details about the jurisdictional basis for dismissal or the claims asserted.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.