Shortymacknifisent v. Beltz

Background

The court reviewed an order and report and recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois on June 8, 2023. The magistrate judge had addressed numerous issues and motions. Plaintiff Archbishop Kingpimp Shortymacknifisent, who was representing himself, filed an objection.

The district court said the objection was 19 pages long but was not stated specifically or coherently. In the court’s view, Shortymacknifisent generally disagreed with the magistrate judge’s analysis and conclusions but did not clearly identify specific objections to the report and recommendation or identify any issue in the order that was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

Review standards

For a magistrate judge’s ruling on a nondispositive issue, the district court may modify or set aside the ruling only if it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The court reviews de novo—meaning independently and without deference—those portions of a report and recommendation to which specific objections are made. The court also stated that filings by a self-represented litigant are read liberally, but that this does not allow the court to supply missing facts or create legal theories for the litigant.

Ruling

The court adopted the magistrate judge’s order and report and recommendation in its entirety and overruled the objection. It granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss, as set forth in the report and recommendation. It denied the motion for summary judgment. The court also dismissed the matter without prejudice and directed that judgment be entered accordingly.

The opinion does not describe the underlying claims, the magistrate judge’s detailed reasoning, or which portions of the motion to dismiss were granted or denied.