Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Procedural orderFiled May 13, 2024

Frank v. State of Minnesota

Judge
Katherine Menendez
Docket
0:23-cv-03768
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureCivil Rights
In one sentence

In Frank v. State of Minnesota, Judge Menendez dismissed the case without prejudice, denied Frank’s fee-waiver applications, and denied as moot his motion to add a supplement.

Who this affects

Joshua David Frank and the named defendants were affected by dismissal of the matter without prejudice. Frank’s applications to proceed without paying the filing fee in advance and his motion to add a supplement were also denied.

What happened

In Frank v. State of Minnesota, the court reviewed a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation after no party objected. The order does not explain the underlying claims or the reason for recommending dismissal.

The court accepted the Report and Recommendation in full and dismissed the matter without prejudice. It denied Joshua David Frank’s applications to proceed without paying the filing fee in advance and denied as moot his motion to add a supplement.

Judge Katherine M. Menendez entered the order after reviewing the record for clear error and found no error in the magistrate judge’s recommendation.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Frank v. State of Minnesota · No. 0:23-cv-03768
Judge
Katherine Menendez
Date
May 13, 2024

Background

The order concerns Joshua David Frank’s case against the State of Minnesota, the Dilworth Police Department, a Dilworth police officer identified as Schlee, the White Earth Tribal Police Department, and a tribal police officer identified as Franklin Tibbets. The court considered a Report and Recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois on February 14, 2024.

No objections to the Report and Recommendation were filed within the permitted time. Because there were no objections, the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error rather than conducting a fresh review of disputed portions. The order does not describe the claims, the parties’ arguments, or the basis for the recommended dismissal.

Rulings

The court found no error, clear or otherwise, in the Report and Recommendation and accepted it in full. It ordered that:

  1. The matter was dismissed without prejudice.
  2. Joshua David Frank’s applications to proceed without paying the filing fee in advance were denied.
  3. His motion to add a supplement was denied as moot.

The court directed that judgment be entered accordingly.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.