Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 12, 2021

Prouty v. Department of Human Services

Judge
Paul Magnuson
Docket
0:21-cv-00058
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Prouty v. Department of Human Services, Judge Magnuson adopted an unopposed recommendation, dismissed the complaint without prejudice, and denied the fee application as moot.

Who this affects

Darrell Prouty, whose complaint was dismissed without prejudice and whose application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs was denied as moot; the opinion does not state the complaint’s claims or the basis for dismissal.

What happened

In Prouty v. Department of Human Services, Darrell Prouty brought a complaint against the Department of Human Services, MSOP, Brooke Ness, Kirk Hill, and David Borchardt. The opinion does not describe the complaint’s claims.

A magistrate judge recommended dismissing the complaint without prejudice and denying Prouty’s application to proceed without paying court fees. Prouty did not object, so the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none.

Judge Paul A. Magnuson adopted the recommendation, dismissed the complaint without prejudice, and denied the application as moot. The order does not explain the basis for dismissing the complaint.

The detailed version

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

Case
Prouty v. Department of Human Services · No. 0:21-cv-00058
Judge
Paul Magnuson
Date
Mar. 12, 2021

Background

Darrell Prouty sued the Department of Human Services, MSOP, Brooke Ness, Kirk Hill, and David Borchardt. The opinion does not identify the claims in his complaint or explain the facts underlying the lawsuit.

Report and Recommendation

United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois issued a Report and Recommendation on February 9, 2021. It recommended dismissing Prouty’s complaint without prejudice and denying as moot his application to proceed in district court without prepaying fees or costs. Prouty filed no objections, and the deadline for doing so had passed.

Because there were no objections, the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error rather than conducting a de novo review. The court found no error in the magistrate judge’s reasoning. The opinion does not state what reasoning supported dismissal.

Ruling

Judge Paul A. Magnuson adopted the Report and Recommendation. The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice and denied as moot Prouty’s application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs. Judgment was ordered to be entered accordingly.

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.