Schultz v. 3M Company and Solventum Company
- Jeffrey Bryan
- 0:25-cv-03223
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 1
In Schultz v. 3M Company and Solventum Company, Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan adopted a magistrate judge's recommendation and dismissed the case without prejudice, also denying plaintiff Larry G. Schultz's request to proceed without paying court fees as moot.
Plaintiff Larry G. Schultz, who filed a complaint against 3M Company and Solventum Company and sought to proceed without paying filing fees. His case has been dismissed without prejudice, meaning he may potentially refile. Others who file complaints and simultaneously seek fee waivers in the District of Minnesota may be affected by similar screening procedures.
What happened
In Schultz v. 3M Company and Solventum Company (Case No. 25-cv-3223), Larry G. Schultz filed a complaint against 3M Company and Solventum Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. Along with his complaint, Schultz asked the court for permission to proceed without paying the standard filing fees, a request known as in forma pauperis status.
Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins reviewed the case and issued a Report and Recommendation suggesting that the complaint be dismissed without prejudice — meaning Schultz is not permanently barred from refiling — and that his fee-waiver request be denied. No objections to that recommendation were filed within the required time period, so the presiding judge reviewed the recommendation only for obvious legal errors.
Finding no clear error in the magistrate judge's analysis, Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan adopted the Report and Recommendation in full. The case was dismissed without prejudice, and Schultz's motion to proceed without paying fees was denied as moot — meaning the fee request no longer needed to be decided because the case itself was dismissed.
The detailed version
In this matter before the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, plaintiff Larry G. Schultz filed a complaint (Doc. No. 1) against defendants 3M Company and Solventum Company, along with a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (IFP) (Doc. No. 2) — a request to waive the standard court filing fees based on financial hardship.
Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) (Doc. No. 7) recommending: (1) dismissal of the complaint without prejudice, and (2) denial of the IFP motion. Under District of Minnesota Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), parties have a set period to file objections to an R&R. No timely objections were filed by any party.
Because no objections were filed, Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan applied the 'clear error' standard of review — a deferential standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and Eighth Circuit precedent (Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996)) that requires adoption of the R&R unless it contains an obvious legal mistake. Finding no clear error, Judge Bryan adopted the R&R in full.
The court ordered: (1) the R&R adopted; (2) the action dismissed without prejudice — meaning Schultz retains the ability to refile his claims if he can cure any deficiencies identified in the R&R; and (3) the IFP motion denied as moot, since dismissal of the case rendered the fee-waiver request no longer relevant. Judgment was ordered to be entered accordingly. The opinion does not describe the underlying substance of Schultz's claims against 3M Company and Solventum Company, nor does it detail the reasons the magistrate judge recommended dismissal.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.