Smith v. Middendorf
Smith v. Middendorf
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Byron David Smith, Civ. No. 22-1205 (PAM/DTS) Plaintiff, v. ORDER Brian Middendorf, Morrison County Attorney, and Michel Wetzel, Morrison County Sheriff (former); and their respective staffs, in their individual and professional capacities; Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz dated June 7, 2022. The R&R recommends dismissal of this matter without prejudice because Plaintiff fails to state a claim for relief.
According to statute, the Court must conduct a de novo review of any portion of the R&R to which specific objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); D. Minn. L.R. 72.2(b). Smith filed a brief (Docket No. 8), which the Court construes as an objection to the R&R. However, the brief fails to reference the R&R or state any specific objection to the R&R. Indeed, Smith presents no reason as to why the R&R’s determination that his claims are barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), was clearly erroneous, and thus his objections fail. Moreover, the R&R explained the deficiencies in Smith’s pleading, and he has failed to cure the deficiencies to state a valid claim. After conducting the required review, the Court ADOPTS the R&R. (Docket No. 7.)
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The Court ADOPTS the R&R (Docket No. 7); 2. The Complaint (Docket No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice; 3. Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (Docket No. 2) is DENIED as moot; and 4. Plaintiff’s Motion for Waiver of Service (Docket No. 3) is DENIED as moot.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: July 18, 2022 s/Paul A. Magnuson Paul A. Magnuson United States District Court Judge
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Byron David Smith, Civ. No. 22-1205 (PAM/DTS) Plaintiff, v. ORDER Brian Middendorf, Morrison County Attorney, and Michel Wetzel, Morrison County Sheriff (former); and their respective staffs, in their individual and professional capacities; Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz dated June 7, 2022. The R&R recommends dismissal of this matter without prejudice because Plaintiff fails to state a claim for relief.
According to statute, the Court must conduct a de novo review of any portion of the R&R to which specific objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); D. Minn. L.R. 72.2(b). Smith filed a brief (Docket No. 8), which the Court construes as an objection to the R&R. However, the brief fails to reference the R&R or state any specific objection to the R&R. Indeed, Smith presents no reason as to why the R&R’s determination that his claims are barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), was clearly erroneous, and thus his objections fail. Moreover, the R&R explained the deficiencies in Smith’s pleading, and he has failed to cure the deficiencies to state a valid claim. After conducting the required review, the Court ADOPTS the R&R. (Docket No. 7.)
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The Court ADOPTS the R&R (Docket No. 7); 2. The Complaint (Docket No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice; 3. Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (Docket No. 2) is DENIED as moot; and 4. Plaintiff’s Motion for Waiver of Service (Docket No. 3) is DENIED as moot.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: July 18, 2022 s/Paul A. Magnuson Paul A. Magnuson United States District Court Judge
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.