Otto v. Schmitt
- Paul Magnuson
- 0:21-cv-01610
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Otto v. Schmitt, Judge Magnuson adopted the report and dismissed Otto’s claims against Karl without prejudice and against the Minnesota Department of Corrections on immunity grounds.
DuWayne Wm. Otto’s claims against Mary Karl and the Minnesota Department of Corrections were dismissed; the claims against Karl were dismissed without prejudice, while the order does not state a disposition for Barbara Schmitt.
What happened
In Otto v. Schmitt, the court reviewed a magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss DuWayne Wm. Otto’s claims against Mary Karl and the Minnesota Department of Corrections. Otto filed documents, but the court concluded they responded to an earlier order rather than objecting to the recommendation.
The court agreed that Otto had not described any individual actions by Karl and that the Minnesota Department of Corrections was protected from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. It adopted the recommendation, dismissed the claims against Karl without prejudice, and dismissed the claims against the Department of Corrections because of that immunity. The order does not state a disposition for Barbara Schmitt.
Judge Paul A. Magnuson reviewed the recommendation, including independently reviewing the challenged issues, and entered the October 26, 2021 order.
The detailed version
- Otto v. Schmitt · No. 0:21-cv-01610
- Paul Magnuson
- Oct. 26, 2021
Background
The court considered the October 5, 2021 report and recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright. The recommendation proposed dismissing DuWayne Wm. Otto’s claims against Mary Karl and the Minnesota Department of Corrections.
Otto filed documents on October 25, 2021. The court found that those documents appeared to respond to an earlier order to show cause rather than object to the recommendation’s conclusions. Those conclusions were that Otto had not pleaded any individualized actions by Karl and that the Minnesota Department of Corrections was immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment.
Standard of Review
When a party makes specific objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the district court reviews the challenged portions independently, known as de novo review. When there are no objections, the court reviews the recommendation for clear error. The court stated that, out of caution, it reviewed the recommendation de novo and found its reasoning sound and its conclusions correct.
Disposition
Judge Paul A. Magnuson adopted the report and recommendation. The court dismissed all claims against Mary Karl without prejudice. It also dismissed all claims against the Minnesota Department of Corrections because the entity is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. The order does not state what happened to Otto’s claims against Barbara Schmitt.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.