Mays v. Holmes

• Court: District Court, D. Minnesota
• Decided: October 2, 2025
• Docket: 0:25-cv-02952
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA OTIS MAYS, No. 25-cv-2952 (KMM/DJF) Plaintiff,

v. ORDER BERNARD HOLMES, et al., Defendants. This matter is before the Court on United States Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) dated August 21, 2025. (Dkt. No. 7.) Judge Foster recommends

that this action be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the allegations in the complaint fail to establish the existence of complete diversity required by 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Plaintiff has not filed objections to the R&R.1 The Court reviews de novo any portion of the R&R to which specific objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Minn. LR 72.2(b). In the absence of objections, the Court reviews the R&R for clear error. Nur v. Olmsted County, 563 F. Supp. 3d 946, 949 (D.

Minn. 2021) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) and Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam)). Based on the Court’s careful review of the R&R and the record in this case, the Magistrate Judge committed no error, clear or otherwise.

1 After the R&R was issued, Mr. Mays sought permission to amend his complaint to cure the deficiency in the allegations of citizenship and an extension for the purposes of doing so. (Dkt. Nos. 9, 10.) Judge Foster denied those requests in an Order dated September 11, 2025. (Dkt. No. 11.) Even if the Court interpreted Mr. Mays’s requests for leave to amend his complaint as an objection to the R&R, the Court would overrule those objections for the same reasons articulated in Judge Foster’s September 11th Order. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the R&R (Dkt. No. 7) is ACCEPTED and this matter is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Let Judgment Be Entered Accordingly.

Date: October 2, 2025 s/Katherine Menendez Katherine Menendez United States District Judge