Mays v. Sherburne County Jail
- Wilhelmina Wright
- 0:21-cv-02078
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Mays v. Sherburne County Jail, Judge Wright adopted three recommendations, dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute, and denied plaintiffs’ fee-waiver applications as moot.
The seven plaintiffs’ case was dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute, and their applications to proceed without paying filing fees were denied as moot. Sherburne County Jail was the defendant.
What happened
Mays v. Sherburne County Jail involved seven plaintiffs and the Sherburne County Jail. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims.
The court considered three reports and recommendations issued by Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois. Because the plaintiffs did not file timely objections, the court reviewed the recommendations for clear error and found none.
Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright adopted all three recommendations. The case was dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute, and the plaintiffs’ applications to proceed without paying filing fees were denied as moot.
The detailed version
- Mays v. Sherburne County Jail · No. 0:21-cv-02078
- Wilhelmina Wright
- Apr. 26, 2022
Background
Seven plaintiffs sued Sherburne County Jail. The opinion does not describe the claims or the events underlying the lawsuit.
Court’s Review
The court considered three Reports and Recommendations issued by United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois on November 30, 2021; January 14, 2022; and February 25, 2022. No timely objections were filed. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the court therefore reviewed the recommendations for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake. The court found no clear error.
Ruling
Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright adopted all three Reports and Recommendations. The court dismissed the matter without prejudice under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute. A dismissal without prejudice does not bar refiling based solely on that dismissal, although the opinion does not discuss any refiling requirements or limitations. The court also denied as moot the plaintiffs’ applications to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning applications to proceed without paying the filing fee in advance. The court directed that judgment be entered.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.