Partridge v. State of Minnesota Beltrami County
- Wilhelmina Wright
- 0:22-cv-02167
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
Judge Wright adopted the recommendation, dismissed Partridge v. State of Minnesota Beltrami County without prejudice, and denied Partridge’s fee application as moot.
Bruce Justin Partridge and the defendants named in the caption were affected by the dismissal. Partridge’s application to proceed without paying filing fees was denied as moot.
What happened
In Partridge v. State of Minnesota Beltrami County, the court reviewed a magistrate judge’s recommendation concerning Bruce Justin Partridge’s case. No party filed objections to that recommendation.
Because there were no timely objections, the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none. The opinion does not explain the underlying reasons for the recommended dismissal.
Judge Wright adopted the recommendation, dismissed the matter without prejudice, and denied Partridge’s application to proceed without paying filing fees as moot. The court directed that judgment be entered.
The detailed version
- Partridge v. State of Minnesota Beltrami County · No. 0:22-cv-02167
- Wilhelmina Wright
- Jan. 10, 2023
Background
Bruce Justin Partridge sued the defendants listed in the case caption. The court’s order addressed an October 11, 2022 report and recommendation by United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright. The opinion does not include the report and recommendation’s explanation of the claims or the reasons for dismissal.
Review of the Recommendation
No objections to the report and recommendation were filed. Under the court’s stated procedure, an unobjected-to recommendation is reviewed for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake. The court reviewed the recommendation and found no clear error.
Ruling
Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright adopted the October 11, 2022 report and recommendation. The matter was dismissed without prejudice, meaning the order did not state that refiling was barred. The court also denied Partridge’s application to proceed without paying filing fees as moot, meaning the application no longer required a decision after the dismissal. The court directed that judgment be entered.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.