Mays v. Holmes
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:25-cv-02952
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Mays v. Holmes, Judge Menendez dismissed Otis Mays's lawsuit without prejudice — meaning he may be able to refile — because the court lacked the power to hear the case due to Mays's failure to establish that the parties are citizens of different states as required for federal court jurisdiction.
Plaintiff Otis Mays, whose lawsuit was dismissed. Also relevant to any litigant in federal court who must establish that the court has jurisdiction — specifically, those relying on diversity jurisdiction (citizenship of parties in different states) to bring a civil case in federal court.
What happened
In Mays v. Holmes (No. 25-cv-2952), Otis Mays filed a lawsuit in federal court against Bernard Holmes and others. The case was reviewed by Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster, who issued a Report and Recommendation on August 21, 2025, concluding that the court had no authority to hear the case because Mays's complaint did not adequately show that all parties are citizens of different states — a requirement known as 'complete diversity' that must be met for a federal court to hear certain civil disputes between private parties under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
After the Report and Recommendation was issued, Mays asked for permission to amend his complaint to fix the citizenship problem and requested more time to do so. Magistrate Judge Foster denied both requests on September 11, 2025. Mays did not file formal objections to the Report and Recommendation, so the district court reviewed it under a more limited standard, looking only for clear errors.
Judge Katherine Menendez adopted the Report and Recommendation in full and dismissed the case without prejudice on October 2, 2025, finding no error in the Magistrate Judge's analysis. A dismissal without prejudice means the case is closed but does not permanently bar Mays from bringing the claims again if the jurisdictional deficiency can be corrected.
The detailed version
In Mays v. Holmes, No. 25-cv-2952 (KMM/DJF), United States District Judge Katherine Menendez adopted Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster's Report and Recommendation (R&R) and dismissed the action without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Background and Jurisdictional Issue
Plaintiff Otis Mays filed suit against Bernard Holmes and others (identified as 'et al.' in the caption). The only apparent basis for federal jurisdiction was diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), which requires 'complete diversity' — meaning every plaintiff must be a citizen of a different state than every defendant. Magistrate Judge Foster's R&R, issued August 21, 2025, found that Mays's complaint failed to allege facts sufficient to establish complete diversity and recommended dismissal without prejudice.
Post-R&R Proceedings
Following the R&R, Mays moved for leave to amend his complaint to cure the deficient citizenship allegations and sought an extension of time for that purpose. (Dkt. Nos. 9, 10.) Magistrate Judge Foster denied both requests by Order dated September 11, 2025 (Dkt. No. 11). Mays did not file formal objections to the R&R.
Standard of Review
Because no objections were filed, Judge Menendez reviewed the R&R for clear error only, as opposed to the more searching de novo review (independent re-examination of the issue) that would apply if specific objections had been raised. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Minn. LR 72.2(b); Nur v. Olmsted County, 563 F. Supp. 3d 946, 949 (D. Minn. 2021). The court noted that even treating Mays's amendment requests as objections, it would overrule them for the same reasons stated in the September 11th Order.
Ruling
On October 2, 2025, Judge Menendez accepted the R&R in full and dismissed the case without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. A dismissal without prejudice does not bar refiling, though any future complaint would need to adequately establish the court's jurisdiction to proceed.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.