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 recommendation, granted Schmitt’s motion to dismiss, and dismissed the matter with prejudice as untimely.
DuWayne Wm. Otto’s claims against Barbara Schmitt were dismissed with prejudice; the order also dismissed the matter.
What happened
In Otto v. Schmitt, the court reviewed a magistrate judge’s recommendation concerning DuWayne Wm. Otto’s claims against Barbara Schmitt. The recommendation said the claims arose in December 2012 and were filed too late under the applicable Minnesota statute of limitations.
Otto did not object to the recommendation before the deadline. Without specific objections, the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error. It concluded that the recommendation’s statute-of-limitations analysis was correct.
Judge Paul A. Magnuson adopted the recommendation, granted Schmitt’s motion to dismiss, and dismissed the matter with prejudice. The court ordered that judgment be entered.
The detailed version
- Otto v. Schmitt · No. 0:21-cv-01610
- Paul Magnuson
- May 11, 2022
Background
DuWayne Wm. Otto sued Barbara Schmitt, Mary Karl, and the Minnesota Department of Corrections. The matter came before the court on United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright’s April 13, 2022, Report and Recommendation (R&R). An R&R is a magistrate judge’s recommended ruling for review by the district judge.
The R&R recommended granting Barbara Schmitt’s motion to dismiss Otto’s claims against her. The R&R concluded that Otto’s claims, if any, arose in December 2012 and were therefore untimely under Minnesota Statutes section 541.05, subdivision 1(5), the statute of limitations cited by the court.
Court’s Review
Otto did not file objections to the R&R, and the time for doing so had expired. When a party makes specific objections, the district court reviews the challenged portions independently. When there are no objections, the court reviews the R&R for clear error. Judge Magnuson stated that the R&R’s conclusion was correct under either standard of review.
Ruling
The court adopted the R&R, granted Barbara Schmitt’s motion to dismiss, and dismissed the matter with prejudice. The court also ordered that judgment be entered. The opinion does not explain the nature of Otto’s underlying claims beyond the statute-of-limitations ruling.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.