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

Beacham v. United States, The

Judge
Wilhelmina Wright
Docket
0:21-cv-00754
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Beacham v. United States, Judge Wright adopted the recommendation, dismissed Beacham’s complaint without prejudice, and denied his fee-waiver application as moot.

Who this affects

Cortez Beacham’s complaint was dismissed without prejudice, and his application to proceed without paying filing fees was denied as moot. The opinion does not explain the basis for dismissing the complaint.

What happened

In Beacham v. United States, Cortez Beacham’s complaint was reviewed after a magistrate judge recommended dismissal. The opinion does not state the recommendation’s underlying reasons.

No objections were filed. The court reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none.

Judge Wright adopted the recommendation, dismissed Beacham’s complaint without prejudice, and denied his application to proceed without paying filing fees as moot.

The detailed version

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

Case
Beacham v. United States, The · No. 0:21-cv-00754
Judge
Wilhelmina Wright
Date
May 12, 2021

Background

Cortez Beacham sued the United States, Minnesota, and Planet Home Lending. The matter came before the district court on an April 7, 2021 report and recommendation from United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois. The opinion does not include the report’s reasoning.

Court’s review

No party filed objections to the report and recommendation. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the district court reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake. The court found no clear error after reviewing the recommendation and the case records.

Ruling

Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright adopted the April 7, 2021 report and recommendation. The court dismissed Beacham’s complaint without prejudice, meaning the order did not bar refiling. The court also denied Beacham’s application to proceed without paying filing fees as moot, meaning the application no longer required a decision in light of the dismissal.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.