Aery v. Anderson
- Wilhelmina Wright
- 0:22-cv-01158
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 1
In Aery v. Anderson, Judge Wright adopted the recommendation, dismissed Aery’s complaint without prejudice, and denied his fee-waiver application as moot.
James Paul Aery’s complaint was dismissed without prejudice, and his application to proceed without paying the filing fee was denied as moot. The opinion names Lee Anderson, Katherine Obryan, and Beltrami County as defendants.
What happened
In Aery v. Anderson, James Paul Aery sued Lee Anderson, Katherine Obryan, and Beltrami County. The district court considered a magistrate judge’s recommendation after no party filed objections.
The court reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none. It adopted the recommendation and dismissed Aery’s complaint without prejudice, meaning the opinion did not bar him from filing it again.
Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright also denied Aery’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee as moot. The court directed that judgment be entered.
The detailed version
- Aery v. Anderson · No. 0:22-cv-01158
- Wilhelmina Wright
- July 12, 2022
Background
James Paul Aery brought this case against Lee Anderson, Katherine Obryan, and Beltrami County. The court considered a June 7, 2022 report and recommendation from United States Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty. The opinion does not describe the underlying allegations or the recommendation’s reasoning.
Court’s Review
No objections to the report and recommendation were filed. Because there were no timely objections, the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake. The court stated that it found no clear error after reviewing the recommendation and the case record.
Disposition
The court adopted the June 7, 2022 report and recommendation. It dismissed Aery’s complaint without prejudice and denied his application to proceed without paying the filing fee as moot. The court ordered that judgment be entered. The opinion does not state why the complaint was dismissed.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.