Evenstad v. Schnell
- Wilhelmina Wright
- 0:20-cv-01464
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Evenstad v. Schnell, Judge Wright dismissed Thomas Evenstad’s complaint without prejudice for failure to prosecute and denied defendants’ motion as moot.
Thomas Evenstad’s complaint was dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The defendants’ motion to dismiss was denied as moot.
What happened
In Evenstad v. Schnell, the court reviewed a magistrate judge’s recommendation concerning Thomas Evenstad’s complaint against Paul Schnell and the other defendants. No party objected to the recommendation.
Because there were no objections, the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or explain the events leading to the failure to prosecute.
Judge Wright adopted the recommendation, dismissed Evenstad’s complaint without prejudice for failure to prosecute, and denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss as moot. The court ordered that judgment be entered.
The detailed version
- Evenstad v. Schnell · No. 0:20-cv-01464
- Wilhelmina Wright
- Mar. 2, 2022
Background
Thomas Evenstad sued Paul Schnell, Michelle Smith, Nate Knutson, Karen Robinson, Nan Larson, Steve Huot, Rebecca Holmes, Will McDonald, Eddie Miles, Carol Krippner, Roger Baburam, Dan Raden, Lt. Halvorson, Lt. Baird, Sgt. M. Krengel, Sgt. Goggisberg, Shawn Iacono, the Minnesota Department of Corrections, and the State of Minnesota. The opinion does not describe the claims in the complaint.
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss. United States Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz issued a January 13, 2022 report and recommendation. No objections were filed. When no timely objections are made, the district court reviews the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake. Judge Wright reviewed the recommendation and found no clear error.
Ruling
The court adopted the report and recommendation. It dismissed Evenstad’s complaint without prejudice for failure to prosecute. “Without prejudice” means the order itself does not bar refiling, although the opinion does not address whether any other restrictions apply. The court also denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss as moot, meaning the court did not need to decide that motion after dismissing the complaint. The court ordered that judgment be entered.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.