King v. Hennepin County Jail
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
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.