Panning v. County to State
- Paul Magnuson
- 0:20-cv-02043
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Panning v. County to State, Judge Magnuson dismissed Jay Charles Panning’s complaint without prejudice for failure to prosecute after adopting an unobjected-to recommendation.
Jay Charles Panning’s complaint was dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute; County to State was the defendant.
What happened
In Panning v. County to State, the court considered a recommendation to dismiss Jay Charles Panning’s complaint because he had failed to prosecute the case.
Panning did not object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation before the deadline. Without objections, the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error rather than conducting a fresh review of the disputed issues.
Judge Magnuson found no error and adopted the recommendation. The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice, meaning the order did not bar refiling.
The detailed version
- Panning v. County to State · No. 0:20-cv-02043
- Paul Magnuson
- June 30, 2021
Background
Jay Charles Panning sued County to State. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims. The matter came before the district court on a report and recommendation from United States Magistrate Judge Kate Menendez, dated June 10, 2021. The recommendation proposed dismissing the complaint for failure to prosecute.
Review of the Recommendation
Panning did not file objections, and the deadline for doing so had passed. When no specific objections are filed, the district court reviews the magistrate judge’s recommendation for clear error. The court reviewed the recommendation and found no error, clear or otherwise, in the magistrate judge’s reasoning.
Ruling
The court adopted the report and recommendation and dismissed the complaint without prejudice. That disposition does not bar refiling. The court directed that judgment be entered accordingly.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.