Jenni v. Goldstein
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:20-cv-02107
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 1
In Mark Jenni v. Goldstein, Judge Tostrud dismissed the action without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and denied Jenni’s fee-waiver application as moot.
Mark Jenni’s action was dismissed without prejudice, and his application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs was denied as moot. Justin Goldstein and Able Roofing, LLC were defendants in the dismissed action.
What happened
In Mark Jenni v. Goldstein, Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois issued a report recommending dismissal. No party objected, so the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error.
The court found no clear error and accepted the report and recommendation. It dismissed the action without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court determined it lacked authority to hear the case.
Judge Eric C. Tostrud also denied Mark Jenni’s application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs as moot, meaning the application no longer required a decision after dismissal.
The detailed version
- Jenni v. Goldstein · No. 0:20-cv-02107
- Eric Tostrud
- Jan. 6, 2021
Background
Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois issued a Report and Recommendation on December 14, 2020. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or explain why subject-matter jurisdiction was lacking.
Review of the Recommendation
No party objected to the Report and Recommendation. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the district court therefore reviewed it for clear error. The court found no clear error and accepted the recommendation.
Rulings
The court ordered that the action be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. This means the dismissal was based on the court’s lack of authority to hear the action, and the order expressly stated that it was without prejudice.
The court also denied Mark Jenni’s application to proceed in district court without prepaying fees or costs as moot. The order directed that judgment be entered accordingly.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.