Coleman v. Ericka
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:22-cv-00526
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
Coleman v. Ericka: Judge Menendez dismissed the action without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and denied Coleman’s fee application as moot.
The order affected Lawrence Coleman’s action against Ericka et al. and his application to proceed without prepaying court fees or costs.
What happened
In Lawrence Coleman v. Ericka et al., the court reviewed a magistrate judge’s recommendation after no objections were filed. The recommendation concerned Coleman’s application to proceed without paying court fees and the dismissal of his action.
The court reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none. It accepted the recommendation, denied Coleman’s application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs as moot, and dismissed the action without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Judge Katherine M. Menendez entered the order on January 4, 2023. Because the dismissal was without prejudice, the order’s stated dismissal did not bar refiling, although the opinion does not explain what steps might be required for a new action.
The detailed version
- Coleman v. Ericka · No. 0:22-cv-00526
- Katherine Menendez
- Jan. 4, 2023
Background
The matter came before the court on the Report and Recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Judge Becky Thorson on September 13, 2022. No objections were filed within the permitted period.
Court’s Review
Because no objections were filed, the court reviewed the Report and Recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake in the recommendation. After reviewing the recommendation and the record, the court found no error, clear or otherwise.
Rulings
The court accepted the Report and Recommendation. It denied Lawrence Coleman’s application to proceed in district court without prepayment of fees or costs as moot. It also dismissed the action without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court concluded it lacked authority to decide the action. The order directed that judgment be entered accordingly.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.