Berumen v. Segal

U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota

Berumen v. Segal

Trial Court Opinion

             UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                            
                DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA                                

Irene Berumen,                             Civ. No. 24-777 (PAM/ECW)      

               Plaintiff,                                            

v.                                                        ORDER           

Warden Michael Segal, Dr. L. Linder,                                      
Nurse Patterson, and Officer Reihman,                                     

               Defendant.                                            

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of 
United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright dated April 17, 2024.  (Docket 
No. 7).  The R&R recommends dismissing this matter without prejudice because it is 
factually frivolous.  A week after the R&R issued, Plaintiff filed an “Exhibit” attaching a 
letter from the Bureau of Prisons denying Plaintiff relief on six administrative tort claims.  
(Docket No. 8.)  This exhibit, to the extent it is relevant at all, cannot be construed as an 
objection to the R&R’s conclusion that Plaintiff has utterly failed to allege any factual 
matter to support her claims in this lawsuit.                             
This Court must review de novo any portion of an R&R to which specific objections 
are made, but in the absence of objections, the Court reviews the R&R only for clear error.  
28 U.S.C. § 636
(b)(1); D. Minn. L.R. 72.2(b); see also Grinder v. Gammon, 
73 F.3d 793, 795
 (8th Cir. 1996) (noting that district court need only review un-objected-to R&R for 
clear error).  Whether the Court reviews the R&R de novo or for clear error, the Magistrate 
Judge’s conclusion is correct.                                            
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:                              
1.   The R&R (Docket No. 7) is ADOPTED;                              

2.   Plaintiff’s IFP Application (Docket No. 2) is DENIED as moot;   
3.   Plaintiff  is  ORDERED  to  pay  the  unpaid  balance  of  the  filing  fee—
     $326.00—in the manner 
28 U.S.C. § 1915
(b)(2) prescribes, and the Clerk of 
     Court  shall  provide  notice  of  this  requirement  to  the  authorities  at  the 
     institution where Plaintiff is confined; and                    
4.   This matter is DISMISSED without prejudice as factually frivolous. 

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.                                      


Date:      May 28, 2024                                                   
                                     s/Paul A. Magnuson              
                              Paul A. Magnuson                       
                              United States District Court Judge     

Trial Court Opinion

             UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                            
                DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA                                

Irene Berumen,                             Civ. No. 24-777 (PAM/ECW)      

               Plaintiff,                                            

v.                                                        ORDER           

Warden Michael Segal, Dr. L. Linder,                                      
Nurse Patterson, and Officer Reihman,                                     

               Defendant.                                            

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of 
United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright dated April 17, 2024.  (Docket 
No. 7).  The R&R recommends dismissing this matter without prejudice because it is 
factually frivolous.  A week after the R&R issued, Plaintiff filed an “Exhibit” attaching a 
letter from the Bureau of Prisons denying Plaintiff relief on six administrative tort claims.  
(Docket No. 8.)  This exhibit, to the extent it is relevant at all, cannot be construed as an 
objection to the R&R’s conclusion that Plaintiff has utterly failed to allege any factual 
matter to support her claims in this lawsuit.                             
This Court must review de novo any portion of an R&R to which specific objections 
are made, but in the absence of objections, the Court reviews the R&R only for clear error.  
28 U.S.C. § 636
(b)(1); D. Minn. L.R. 72.2(b); see also Grinder v. Gammon, 
73 F.3d 793, 795
 (8th Cir. 1996) (noting that district court need only review un-objected-to R&R for 
clear error).  Whether the Court reviews the R&R de novo or for clear error, the Magistrate 
Judge’s conclusion is correct.                                            
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:                              
1.   The R&R (Docket No. 7) is ADOPTED;                              

2.   Plaintiff’s IFP Application (Docket No. 2) is DENIED as moot;   
3.   Plaintiff  is  ORDERED  to  pay  the  unpaid  balance  of  the  filing  fee—
     $326.00—in the manner 
28 U.S.C. § 1915
(b)(2) prescribes, and the Clerk of 
     Court  shall  provide  notice  of  this  requirement  to  the  authorities  at  the 
     institution where Plaintiff is confined; and                    
4.   This matter is DISMISSED without prejudice as factually frivolous. 

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.                                      


Date:      May 28, 2024                                                   
                                     s/Paul A. Magnuson              
                              Paul A. Magnuson                       
                              United States District Court Judge     

Reference

Status
Unknown