Henderson v. Department of Correction
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:22-cv-00345
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Henderson v. Department of Correction, Judge Menendez dismissed the action without prejudice after screening, denied several motions and fee-waiver applications, and ordered payment of the filing-fee balance.
Mike C. Henderson must pay the unpaid balance of the statutory filing fee; the listed defendants are affected by the dismissal of this action without prejudice; and authorities at the institution where Henderson is confined must receive notice of the payment requirement.
What happened
In Mike C. Henderson v. Minnesota Department of Correction, a magistrate judge recommended dismissing the action without prejudice, denying Henderson’s applications to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront, denying his other motions, and requiring payment of the unpaid filing fee.
No one objected to the recommendation. The district court therefore reviewed it for clear error and found no error. The opinion does not explain the underlying claims because the court resolved the case through the required screening process.
Judge Katherine M. Menendez accepted the recommendation, dismissed the matter without prejudice, denied the applications to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront, denied three motions, and ordered Henderson to pay the unpaid balance of the statutory filing fee under the required payment process.
The detailed version
- Henderson v. Department of Correction · No. 0:22-cv-00345
- Katherine Menendez
- July 7, 2022
Background
The matter came before the district court on the report and recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois, dated May 13, 2022. The report and recommendation advised the court to dismiss the action without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), deny Mike C. Henderson’s applications to proceed in forma pauperis—meaning to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront—and deny his other motions. It also recommended requiring Henderson to pay the unpaid balance of the statutory filing fee.
Court’s review
Because no objections were filed, the district court reviewed the report and recommendation for clear error rather than conducting a new review of disputed portions. The court stated that it had carefully reviewed the report and recommendation and the record and found no error, clear or otherwise.
Rulings
The court accepted the report and recommendation. It dismissed the matter without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). It denied Henderson’s applications to proceed in forma pauperis, his motion for evidence of consent, his motion to dismiss, and his motion to exonerate torts. The court also ordered Henderson to pay the unpaid balance of the statutory filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2), and directed the Clerk of Court to notify the authorities at the institution where he is confined about that requirement.
Disposition
The order resolves this matter through statutory screening and related filing-fee and motion rulings. It does not decide the underlying claims on their merits. The dismissal was expressly stated to be without prejudice.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.