King v. Ogastien

U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota

King v. Ogastien

Trial Court Opinion

                 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                            
                     DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA                               


Aaron Scott King Sr.,               Case No. 24-CV-02442 (JMB/DJF)       

               Plaintiff,                                                

ORDER

v.                                                                       

Officer Ogastien, Henipen County Jail;                                   
Henipen County Jail; SGT who Denied my                                   
agreviece; Nurses and Correctional Officers;                             

               Defendants.                                               


    This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of 
United States Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster dated July 16, 2024.  (Doc. No. 4.)  In the 
R&R, the Magistrate Judge considered whether to grant King’s motion to proceed in forma 
pauperis.  (See id.; Doc. No. 3.)  The Magistrate Judge concluded that, because King’s 
Complaint (Doc. No. 1) fails to state a viable claim for relief, this action should be 
dismissed  and  his  IFP  application  should  be  denied  accordingly  under  28  U.S.C. 
§ 1915A(b).  The Magistrate Judge also recommended that King be ordered to pay the 
outstanding $350 statutory civil-action filing fee for which he is responsible under 
28 U.S.C. § 1915
(b)(2).  King did not object to the R&R.  See D. Minn. L.R. 72.2(b)(1). 
    In the absence of timely objections, the Court reviews the R&R for clear error.  See 
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Grinder v. Gammon, 
73 F.3d 793, 795
 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam).  
Finding no clear error, and based upon all the files, records, and proceedings in the above-
captioned matter, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:                              
    1.   The R&R (Doc. No. 4) is ADOPTED.                                

    2.   King’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 3) is DENIED. 

    3.   The Court dismisses this action without prejudice.              

    4.   Mr. King shall pay the unpaid balance of the statutory filing fee ($350.00) in 
         the manner prescribed by 
28 U.S.C. § 1915
(b)(2).  The Clerk of Court shall 
         provide notice of this requirement to the authorities at the institution where 
         King is incarcerated.                                           

    LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.                                 
Dated: October 24, 2024                 /s/ Jeffrey M. Bryan              
                                       Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan            
                                       United States District Court      

Trial Court Opinion

                 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                            
                     DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA                               


Aaron Scott King Sr.,               Case No. 24-CV-02442 (JMB/DJF)       

               Plaintiff,                                                

ORDER

v.                                                                       

Officer Ogastien, Henipen County Jail;                                   
Henipen County Jail; SGT who Denied my                                   
agreviece; Nurses and Correctional Officers;                             

               Defendants.                                               


    This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of 
United States Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster dated July 16, 2024.  (Doc. No. 4.)  In the 
R&R, the Magistrate Judge considered whether to grant King’s motion to proceed in forma 
pauperis.  (See id.; Doc. No. 3.)  The Magistrate Judge concluded that, because King’s 
Complaint (Doc. No. 1) fails to state a viable claim for relief, this action should be 
dismissed  and  his  IFP  application  should  be  denied  accordingly  under  28  U.S.C. 
§ 1915A(b).  The Magistrate Judge also recommended that King be ordered to pay the 
outstanding $350 statutory civil-action filing fee for which he is responsible under 
28 U.S.C. § 1915
(b)(2).  King did not object to the R&R.  See D. Minn. L.R. 72.2(b)(1). 
    In the absence of timely objections, the Court reviews the R&R for clear error.  See 
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Grinder v. Gammon, 
73 F.3d 793, 795
 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam).  
Finding no clear error, and based upon all the files, records, and proceedings in the above-
captioned matter, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:                              
    1.   The R&R (Doc. No. 4) is ADOPTED.                                

    2.   King’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 3) is DENIED. 

    3.   The Court dismisses this action without prejudice.              

    4.   Mr. King shall pay the unpaid balance of the statutory filing fee ($350.00) in 
         the manner prescribed by 
28 U.S.C. § 1915
(b)(2).  The Clerk of Court shall 
         provide notice of this requirement to the authorities at the institution where 
         King is incarcerated.                                           

    LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.                                 
Dated: October 24, 2024                 /s/ Jeffrey M. Bryan              
                                       Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan            
                                       United States District Court      

Reference

Status
Unknown