Craft v. Eischen
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:22-cv-02032
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Craft v. Eischen, Judge Menendez dismissed the action without prejudice as duplicative after reviewing an unobjected-to recommendation.
Charles Craft's action was dismissed without prejudice as duplicative; the order does not identify the other action or provide further details about the duplication.
What happened
Charles Craft brought this action against Warden Eischen, FPC, Duluth. The opinion does not explain the underlying claims or why the action was considered duplicative.
Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty issued a recommendation on October 25, 2022. No one filed objections. Judge Menendez therefore reviewed the recommendation and case record for clear error.
Judge Menendez found no error and ordered the action dismissed without prejudice as duplicative. The court directed that judgment be entered. The order does not provide further details about the duplication.
The detailed version
- Craft v. Eischen · No. 0:22-cv-02032
- Katherine Menendez
- Jan. 18, 2023
Background
The opinion identifies Charles Craft as the petitioner and Warden Eischen, FPC, Duluth, as the defendant. It does not describe the claims or the factual basis of the action. The court ultimately characterized the action as duplicative, but it did not explain what other action made it duplicative.
Recommendation and Review
United States Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty issued a Report and Recommendation on October 25, 2022. No objections were filed within the permitted period. Because there were no objections, the district court reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake, rather than conducting the more extensive review required for specifically challenged portions.
Ruling
Judge Katherine M. Menendez stated that the magistrate judge committed no error, clear or otherwise. The court ordered: “This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as duplicative.” A dismissal without prejudice does not bar refiling, although the opinion does not discuss any possible refiling or other next steps. The court also directed that judgment be entered.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.