Simmons v. Marshall
- Paul Magnuson
- 0:21-cv-00949
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Simmons v. Marshall, Judge Magnuson dismissed the case after adopting a recommendation that Simmons had not stated a claim.
Scott Lawrence Simmons and D.P. Marshall; Simmons’s case was dismissed, and his application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs was denied.
What happened
Simmons v. Marshall concerned Scott Lawrence Simmons’s lawsuit against D.P. Marshall. A magistrate judge recommended dismissing the case because the complaint did not state a claim for relief.
Simmons did not object to that recommendation before the deadline. The district court therefore reviewed it for clear error and found none.
Judge Magnuson adopted the recommendation, dismissed the case, and denied Simmons’s application to proceed without paying court fees or costs.
The detailed version
- Simmons v. Marshall · No. 0:21-cv-00949
- Paul Magnuson
- May 7, 2021
Background
The court considered a report and recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Judge Katherine Menendez on April 22, 2021. The recommendation advised dismissing Scott Lawrence Simmons’s matter for failure to state a claim for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), a provision requiring screening of certain cases filed without prepaying fees.
Simmons did not file objections, and the objection deadline had passed. Without specific objections, the district court reviewed the recommendation for clear error rather than conducting a full new review of the disputed issues.
Ruling
The court found no error, clear or otherwise, in the magistrate judge’s reasoning. Judge Paul A. Magnuson ordered that the report and recommendation be adopted, the matter be dismissed, and Simmons’s application to proceed in district court without prepaying fees or costs be denied. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.