Siruk v. State of Minnesota

Background

A United States magistrate judge recommended dismissing the plaintiffs’ complaint without prejudice because the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction—the legal authority to hear the dispute—and because the complaint was frivolous. Petro Siruk filed a document labeled a “response” to the recommendation.

Review of the Recommendation

The district court explained that it reviews specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation independently, while reviewing unchallenged portions for clear error. The court determined that Petro Siruk’s response did not address the recommendation or identify an error of law or fact. Instead, it repeated allegations from earlier filings. To the extent the response could be treated as an objection, the court overruled it. After reviewing the recommendation, the court found it neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.

Rulings

The court ordered the following:

- Petro Siruk’s response to the recommendation was overruled. - The February 22, 2021 Report and Recommendation was adopted. - Petro Siruk’s motion to voluntarily dismiss Defendant State of Minnesota (City of Elk River) was granted. - Defendant State of Minnesota (City of Elk River)’s motion to dismiss and the plaintiffs’ motion responding to it were denied as moot. - The plaintiffs’ complaint was dismissed without prejudice. - The plaintiffs’ application to proceed without paying filing fees was denied as moot.

Because the dismissal rested on lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and frivolity, the order was procedural rather than a decision on the underlying claims’ merits.