Perkins v. Biden
- Paul Magnuson
- 0:24-cv-01398
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Perkins v. Biden, Judge Magnuson dismissed the claims without prejudice, denied Perkins’s fee-waiver application as moot, and denied his show-cause motions as moot.
Victor Bernard Perkins, whose claims were dismissed without prejudice, and the named defendants in the case.
What happened
Perkins v. Biden involved claims by Victor Bernard Perkins against Joe Biden, Donald Trump, and the Director of the Internal Revenue Service. A magistrate judge recommended dismissing the claims without prejudice.
Perkins did not object to that recommendation before the deadline, and his later show-cause motion did not mention it. The court reviewed the recommendation for clear error and agreed that Perkins had not stated a claim against any defendant.
Judge Paul A. Magnuson adopted the recommendation and dismissed the case without prejudice. He denied Perkins’s application to proceed without paying filing fees as moot and denied both show-cause motions as moot.
The detailed version
- Perkins v. Biden · No. 0:24-cv-01398
- Paul Magnuson
- May 28, 2024
Background
Victor Bernard Perkins sued Joe Biden, Donald Trump, and the Director of the Internal Revenue Service. United States Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung issued a Report and Recommendation on April 30, 2024, recommending that Perkins’s claims be dismissed without prejudice, his application to proceed without paying filing fees be denied as moot, and his motion for a procedural order to show cause be denied as moot.
Perkins did not object to the Report and Recommendation within the required time. He filed another show-cause motion the next day, but the court determined that the motion did not mention the Report and Recommendation and therefore could not be treated as an objection.
Court’s Review
When no specific objection is filed, the district court reviews a magistrate judge’s recommendation for clear error. The court stated that the standard of review did not matter here because the magistrate judge’s conclusion that Perkins had failed to state a claim against any defendant was correct.
Ruling
Judge Paul A. Magnuson adopted the Report and Recommendation. The court dismissed the matter without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), denied Perkins’s application to proceed without paying filing fees as moot, and denied both of Perkins’s motions for a procedural order to show cause as moot. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims in greater detail.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.