Stephens v. Stephens

Filing 6

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: the Objections to the Report and Recommendation 5 are OVERRULED, the Report and Recommendation 4 is ACCEPTED in full, the action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs 2 is DENIED AS MOOT. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Eric C. Tostrud on 10/8/2019. (RMM)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Carol Vanerka Stephens, File No. 19-cv-1689 (ECT/LIB) Plaintiff, v. ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Stephen Stephens, Defendant. ________________________________________________________________________ Plaintiff Carol Vanerka Stephens commenced this action pro se by filing a complaint challenging the legality of certain state-court proceedings relating to a property dispute. See generally Compl. [ECF No. 1]. At the same time, she applied to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). ECF No. 2. The case is before the Court on a Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois. ECF No. 4 (“R&R”). Magistrate Judge Brisbois recommends dismissing Stephens’s complaint without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and denying her IFP application as moot. R&R at 7. Stephens filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. ECF No. 5. Because Stephens has objected, the Court is required to review the Report and Recommendation de novo pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 72.2(b)(3). The Court has undertaken that de novo review and has concluded that the Report and Recommendation’s analysis and conclusions are correct. Therefore, based upon all of the files, records, and proceedings in the abovecaptioned matter, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. The Objections to the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 5] are OVERRULED; 2. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 4] is ACCEPTED in full; 3. The action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; and 4. Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs [ECF No. 2] is DENIED AS MOOT. LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. Dated: October 8, 2019 s/ Eric C. Tostrud Eric C. Tostrud United States District Court 2  

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?