Doward v. State of Minnesota
Doward v. State of Minnesota
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Monique Annette Doward, Civ. No. 24-182 (JWB/LIB) Plaintiff, ORDER ACCEPTING v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF State of Minnesota, MAGISTRATE JUDGE Defendant. ________________________________________________________________________ Monique Annette Doward, pro se Plaintiff.
United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) on January 30, 2024. (Doc. No. 3.) Plaintiff Monique Annette Doward has filed objections. (Doc. No. 4.) A district court reviews the portions of the R&R to which the parties object de novo and “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); D. Minn. LR 72.2(b)(3). When a party fails to file specific objections to an R&R or merely repeats its prior arguments, de novo review is not required. See Montgomery v. Compass Airlines, LLC, 98 F. Supp. 3d 1012, 1017 (D. Minn. 2015). The portions of an R&R to which no specific objection is made are reviewed for clear error.
Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996). Because Doward is pro se, her objections receive liberal construction. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
Doward’s objection that her claims present federal questions misunderstands the procedural defects in her filing and does not present a specific argument challenging the R&R’s findings. As either plaintiff or counterclaim plaintiff, Doward is not permitted to remove her own claims to federal court. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1446(a), 1441; Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 107 (1941). There is no subject matter jurisdiction and Doward’s objection is overruled.
ORDER Based on the R&R of the Magistrate Judge, and on all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The January 30, 2024 Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 3) is ACCEPTED; 2. The present action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for improper removal and lack of subject matter jurisdiction; and 3. Plaintiff Monique Annette Doward’s Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. No. 2) is DENIED as moot.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Date: April 2, 2024 s/ Jerry W. Blackwell JERRY W. BLACKWELL United States District Judge
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Monique Annette Doward, Civ. No. 24-182 (JWB/LIB) Plaintiff, ORDER ACCEPTING v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF State of Minnesota, MAGISTRATE JUDGE Defendant. ________________________________________________________________________ Monique Annette Doward, pro se Plaintiff.
United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) on January 30, 2024. (Doc. No. 3.) Plaintiff Monique Annette Doward has filed objections. (Doc. No. 4.) A district court reviews the portions of the R&R to which the parties object de novo and “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); D. Minn. LR 72.2(b)(3). When a party fails to file specific objections to an R&R or merely repeats its prior arguments, de novo review is not required. See Montgomery v. Compass Airlines, LLC, 98 F. Supp. 3d 1012, 1017 (D. Minn. 2015). The portions of an R&R to which no specific objection is made are reviewed for clear error.
Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996). Because Doward is pro se, her objections receive liberal construction. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
Doward’s objection that her claims present federal questions misunderstands the procedural defects in her filing and does not present a specific argument challenging the R&R’s findings. As either plaintiff or counterclaim plaintiff, Doward is not permitted to remove her own claims to federal court. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1446(a), 1441; Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 107 (1941). There is no subject matter jurisdiction and Doward’s objection is overruled.
ORDER Based on the R&R of the Magistrate Judge, and on all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The January 30, 2024 Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 3) is ACCEPTED; 2. The present action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for improper removal and lack of subject matter jurisdiction; and 3. Plaintiff Monique Annette Doward’s Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. No. 2) is DENIED as moot.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Date: April 2, 2024 s/ Jerry W. Blackwell JERRY W. BLACKWELL United States District Judge
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.