Wattleton v. Turner

D. Minnesota

Wattleton v. Turner

DecidedJanuary 7, 2025

Docket0:24-cv-03936

StatusUnknown

This text of Wattleton v. Turner (Wattleton v. Turner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wattleton v. Turner, (mnd 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Wattleton v. Turner, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wattleton-v-turner-mnd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack