Daywitt v. Minnesota Department of Human Services
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:22-cv-00007
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Daywitt v. Minnesota Department of Human Services, Judge Tostrud accepted the recommendation, dismissed the complaint without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, and denied each plaintiff’s application as moot.
The four plaintiffs—Kenneth Daywitt, Justin Newman, Andrew Day, and Jacob Flom—had their complaint dismissed without prejudice, and each plaintiff’s application to proceed without paying filing fees was denied as moot. The opinion does not describe any separate relief against the defendants.
What happened
Daywitt v. Minnesota Department of Human Services involved Kenneth Daywitt, Justin Newman, Andrew Day, and Jacob Flom’s complaint against the Minnesota Department of Human Services and Richard McHugh.
A magistrate judge recommended resolving the case, and no party objected. The district court reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none.
Judge Tostrud accepted the recommendation, dismissed the complaint without prejudice because the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, and denied each plaintiff’s application to proceed without paying filing fees as moot.
The detailed version
- Daywitt v. Minnesota Department of Human Services · No. 0:22-cv-00007
- Eric Tostrud
- Mar. 8, 2022
Background
Kenneth Daywitt, Justin Newman, Andrew Day, and Jacob Flom filed a complaint against the Minnesota Department of Human Services and Richard McHugh, identified as an MSOP Moose Lake polygraph examiner, in both his individual and official capacities. The opinion does not describe the complaint’s underlying claims.
Report and Recommendation
Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty issued a Report and Recommendation on February 8, 2022. No party objected. The district court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning it looked for an obvious mistake in the magistrate judge’s proposed ruling.
Ruling
The court found no clear error and accepted the Report and Recommendation. It dismissed the complaint without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court concluded it lacked legal authority to hear the case. The court also denied as moot each individual plaintiff’s application to proceed without paying filing fees. The opinion does not state the specific jurisdictional defect or address the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims. Judgment was ordered to be entered.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.