Wattleton v. Turner

Filing 7

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Report and Recommendation 6 is ACCEPTED to the extent it recommends the case be dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff David Earl Wattleton's Complaint 1 is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE under 2 8 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs 2 is DENIED as moot. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Submit Evidence 4 is DENIED as moot. LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Eric C. Tostrud on 1/7/2025.(RMM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

David Earl Wattleton,

File No. 24-cv-3936 (ECT/JFD)

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION

Luke Turner, Olmstead County Election
Commissioner,
Defendant.
________________________________________________________________________
Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty issued a Report and Recommendation on
December 5, 2024.

ECF No. 6.

No party has objected to that Report and

Recommendation, and it is therefore reviewed for clear error. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b);
Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam).

The

recommendation to dismiss the case without prejudice will be accepted, but on mootness
grounds. See Whitfield v. Thurston, 3 F.4th 1045, 1048 (8th Cir. 2021) (“Since Arkansas
AFL-CIO, we have repeatedly applied the same-complaining-party requirement in
election cases.”); see also FEC v. Wis. Right to Life, Inc., 551 U.S. 449, 462 (2007)
(requiring “a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party will be subject to
the same action again”). The Complaint alleges no facts plausibly showing that Mr.
Wattleton may be deprived of an absentee ballot in future elections. And the Complaint
seeks no (not even nominal) damages. See Van Wie v. Pataki, 267 F.3d 109, 115 n.4 (2d
Cir. 2001).

Therefore, based on the foregoing, and on all the files, records, and proceedings
herein, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1.

The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 6] is ACCEPTED to the

extent it recommends the case be dismissed without prejudice.
2.

Plaintiff David Earl Wattleton’s Complaint [ECF No. 1] is DISMISSED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction.
3.

Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees

or Costs [ECF No. 2] is DENIED as moot.
4.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Submit Evidence [ECF No. 4] is DENIED

as moot.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: January 7, 2025

s/ Eric C. Tostrud
Eric C. Tostrud
United States District Court

2