Cook v. Sterns County
- Paul Magnuson
- 0:22-cv-02734
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Cook v. Sterns County, Judge Magnuson adopted the recommendation, dismissed Cook’s complaint without prejudice, and denied his application to proceed without paying filing fees.
Kenneth Cook, Jr.; his complaint was dismissed without prejudice, and his application to proceed without paying filing fees was denied.
What happened
In Cook v. Sterns County, the court reviewed a recommendation that Kenneth Cook, Jr.’s claims be dismissed for failure to state a claim under a prisoner-screening statute. Cook did not object to the recommendation.
Because there were no objections, the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error rather than conducting a full new review. The court found no error in the magistrate judge’s reasoning.
Judge Paul A. Magnuson adopted the recommendation, dismissed the complaint without prejudice, and denied Cook’s application to proceed without paying filing fees. The opinion also notes that Cook apparently intended to name Stearns County, although the caption says Sterns County.
The detailed version
- Cook v. Sterns County · No. 0:22-cv-02734
- Paul Magnuson
- Dec. 21, 2022
Background
Kenneth Cook, Jr. sued the defendant identified in the caption as Sterns County. The court’s footnote states that the earlier recommendation indicated Cook apparently intended to name Stearns County instead. The opinion does not describe the underlying events or identify the specific claims in the complaint.
Report and Recommendation
Judge John F. Docherty issued a Report and Recommendation recommending dismissal of Cook’s claims without prejudice for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). Cook did not file objections, and the deadline for doing so had passed.
When no specific objections are filed, the district court reviews the recommendation for clear error. The court reviewed the recommendation and found no error, clear or otherwise, in Judge Docherty’s reasoning.
Disposition
The court adopted the Report and Recommendation. It dismissed the complaint without prejudice and denied Cook’s application to proceed without paying filing fees. The court ordered that judgment be entered accordingly.
Effect
“Without prejudice” means the dismissal itself does not bar refiling. The opinion does not state whether Cook later filed another complaint or what specific defect caused the failure-to-state-a-claim dismissal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.