Heggs v. Olmsted County
Heggs v. Olmsted County
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Terry Heggs, Case No. 21-cv-0756 (WMW/JFD) Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE v. JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Olmsted County, Mr. Hill, and R.P.D, Defendants.
Before the Court is United States Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty’s March 24, 2022 Report and Recommendation (R&R). (Dkt. 44.) The R&R recommends granting Defendants’ motions to dismiss and dismissing with prejudice Plaintiff Terry Heggs’s complaint.
A district court reviews de novo those portions of a R&R to which timely objections are filed. 28 U.S.C § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); LR 72.2(b)(3). The district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). An objection to a R&R must specify the nature of the objection and the grounds for doing so. Montgomery v. Compass Airlines, LLC, 98 F. Supp. 3d 1012, 1017 (D. Minn. 2015). In the absence of specific objections, de novo review is not required, and a district court reviews the R&R for clear error. See id. (observing that objections to a R&R that “are not specific but merely repeat arguments presented to and considered by a magistrate judge are not entitled to de novo review, but rather are reviewed for clear error”). Because Heggs is proceeding pro se, the Court construes his objections liberally. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
Heggs filed two almost identical one-paragraph letters in response to the R&R. Construing these filings liberally, the Court addresses the letters as Heggs’s untimely objections to the R&R, which the Court may consider. See Prewitt v. Reiser, No. 13-2866 (JRT/LIB), 2014 WL 5325356, at *5 n.3 (D. Minn. Oct. 20, 2014) (explaining that “the deadline for filing objections is not jurisdictional, and late-filed objections can be considered where the filing is not egregiously late and causes no prejudice to any adverse party” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Grant v. Cent. Intel. Agency, No. 19-2931 (ECT/HB), 2020 WL 759950, at *1 (D. Minn. Feb. 14, 2020) (considering objection filed five days late because party was “proceeding pro se and he was late by only a few days”).
However, because Heggs’s objections lack specificity, the Court reviews the R&R for clear error. See Montgomery, 98 F. Supp. 3d at 1017. Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds no clear error. The Court, therefore, overrules Heggs’s objections, adopts the R&R in its entirety and dismisses Heggs’s complaint with prejudice.
ORDER Based on the R&R and all the files, records and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff Terry Heggs’s objections, (Dkts. 45, 48), are OVERRULED.
2. The March 24, 2022 Report and Recommendation, (Dkt. 44), is ADOPTED.
3. Defendant R.P.D.’s motion to dismiss, (Dkt. 20), is GRANTED.
4. Defendants Olmsted County and Mr. Hill’s motion to dismiss, (Dkt. 28), is GRANTED.
5. Plaintiff Terry Heggs’s complaint, (Dkt. 1), is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: June 23, 2022 s/Wilhelmina M. Wright Wilhelmina M. Wright United States District Judge
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Terry Heggs, Case No. 21-cv-0756 (WMW/JFD) Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE v. JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Olmsted County, Mr. Hill, and R.P.D, Defendants.
Before the Court is United States Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty’s March 24, 2022 Report and Recommendation (R&R). (Dkt. 44.) The R&R recommends granting Defendants’ motions to dismiss and dismissing with prejudice Plaintiff Terry Heggs’s complaint.
A district court reviews de novo those portions of a R&R to which timely objections are filed. 28 U.S.C § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); LR 72.2(b)(3). The district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). An objection to a R&R must specify the nature of the objection and the grounds for doing so. Montgomery v. Compass Airlines, LLC, 98 F. Supp. 3d 1012, 1017 (D. Minn. 2015). In the absence of specific objections, de novo review is not required, and a district court reviews the R&R for clear error. See id. (observing that objections to a R&R that “are not specific but merely repeat arguments presented to and considered by a magistrate judge are not entitled to de novo review, but rather are reviewed for clear error”). Because Heggs is proceeding pro se, the Court construes his objections liberally. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
Heggs filed two almost identical one-paragraph letters in response to the R&R. Construing these filings liberally, the Court addresses the letters as Heggs’s untimely objections to the R&R, which the Court may consider. See Prewitt v. Reiser, No. 13-2866 (JRT/LIB), 2014 WL 5325356, at *5 n.3 (D. Minn. Oct. 20, 2014) (explaining that “the deadline for filing objections is not jurisdictional, and late-filed objections can be considered where the filing is not egregiously late and causes no prejudice to any adverse party” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Grant v. Cent. Intel. Agency, No. 19-2931 (ECT/HB), 2020 WL 759950, at *1 (D. Minn. Feb. 14, 2020) (considering objection filed five days late because party was “proceeding pro se and he was late by only a few days”).
However, because Heggs’s objections lack specificity, the Court reviews the R&R for clear error. See Montgomery, 98 F. Supp. 3d at 1017. Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds no clear error. The Court, therefore, overrules Heggs’s objections, adopts the R&R in its entirety and dismisses Heggs’s complaint with prejudice.
ORDER Based on the R&R and all the files, records and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff Terry Heggs’s objections, (Dkts. 45, 48), are OVERRULED.
2. The March 24, 2022 Report and Recommendation, (Dkt. 44), is ADOPTED.
3. Defendant R.P.D.’s motion to dismiss, (Dkt. 20), is GRANTED.
4. Defendants Olmsted County and Mr. Hill’s motion to dismiss, (Dkt. 28), is GRANTED.
5. Plaintiff Terry Heggs’s complaint, (Dkt. 1), is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: June 23, 2022 s/Wilhelmina M. Wright Wilhelmina M. Wright United States District Judge
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.