King v. Hennepin County Jail
U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota
King v. Hennepin County Jail
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Aaron Scott King, Case No. 24-CV-02431 (JMB/DJF)
Plaintiff,
ORDER
v.
Hennepin County Jail, all Medical CO’s
County Jail Staff; Ben, Nurse in Hennepin;
Officer Ogastien; and SGT who Denied my
agreviece,
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). 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.
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, Case No. 24-CV-02431 (JMB/DJF)
Plaintiff,
ORDER
v.
Hennepin County Jail, all Medical CO’s
County Jail Staff; Ben, Nurse in Hennepin;
Officer Ogastien; and SGT who Denied my
agreviece,
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). 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.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: October 24, 2024 /s/ Jeffrey M. Bryan
Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan
United States District Court Reference
- Status
- Unknown