Court, Explained
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Back to docket
MixedFiled Dec. 23, 2025

Thompson v. Clay County Sheriffs and Correctional Facility

Judge
Katherine Menendez
Docket
0:25-cv-02398
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
2
Civil RightsSection 1983Pro SeMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Thompson v. Clay County Sheriffs and Correctional Facility and Mike Rapp, Judge Menendez accepted a magistrate judge's recommendation and dismissed Joshua Thompson's lawsuit without prejudice for failing to state a legal claim, while also ordering him to pay the remaining $344.21 court filing fee.

Who this affects

Incarcerated individuals who file civil rights lawsuits in federal court, particularly those subject to prisoner litigation screening requirements under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and parties who seek to proceed without prepaying filing fees.

What happened

In Thompson v. Clay County Sheriffs and Correctional Facility and Mike Rapp (No. 25-cv-2398), Joshua Thompson, who appears to be an incarcerated person, filed an amended complaint in federal court in Minnesota against Clay County Sheriffs and Correctional Facility and an individual named Mike Rapp. Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty reviewed the complaint under a federal law that requires courts to screen lawsuits filed by prisoners and recommended dismissing it because it failed to state a claim for which a court could grant relief. Magistrate Judge Docherty also recommended denying Thompson's requests to proceed without paying court fees and his requests for a court-appointed lawyer, since those requests would become irrelevant if the case was dismissed.

Joshua Thompson was given until October 23, 2025 to file objections to the magistrate judge's recommendations, but he did not do so. Although the court received a letter from Thompson on November 12, 2025, that letter did not include any objections to the recommendations.

Judge Menendez reviewed the magistrate judge's report for clear legal error — the standard that applies when no objections are filed — and found none. As a result, Judge Menendez accepted the report and recommendation in full, dismissing Thompson's amended complaint without prejudice (meaning he is not permanently barred from refiling), denying his fee waiver and attorney appointment requests as moot, and ordering him to pay the unpaid balance of $344.21 in filing fees, with the court clerk directed to notify the institution where Thompson is held.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case: Joshua Thompson v. Clay County Sheriffs and Correctional Facility, and Mike Rapp, No. 25-cv-2398 (KMM/JFD), United States District Court, District of Minnesota. Decided by District Judge Katherine Menendez on December 23, 2025.

Background and Procedural Posture

Plaintiff Joshua Thompson, apparently an incarcerated individual, filed an amended complaint (Dkt. 30) against Clay County Sheriffs and Correctional Facility and Mike Rapp. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty for a Report and Recommendation (R&R).

Magistrate Judge's Recommendations: On October 9, 2025, Magistrate Judge Docherty issued an R&R (Dkt. 32) recommending:

  1. Dismissal of the Amended Complaint without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), which requires courts to screen prisoner complaints and dismiss those that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
  2. Denial as moot of Thompson's two Applications to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs ('IFP Applications,' Dkts. 5 and 8) — commonly called 'in forma pauperis' applications, which allow indigent litigants to avoid prepaying filing fees.
  3. Denial as moot of Thompson's two Motions to Appoint Counsel (Dkts. 16 and 20).
  4. A requirement that Thompson pay the remaining unpaid balance of the statutory filing fee.

Objections

The deadline to object to the R&R was October 23, 2025, under Local Rule 72.2(b)(1). Thompson did not file objections. A letter was received from Thompson on November 12, 2025 (Dkt. 33), but the court noted it contained no objections.

Standard of Review

Because no objections were filed, Judge Menendez reviewed the R&R only for clear error, citing Nur v. Olmsted Cnty., 563 F. Supp. 3d 946, 949 (D. Minn. 2021), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), and Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996).

Court's Ruling: Finding no clear error, Judge Menendez accepted the R&R in full and ordered:

  1. The Amended Complaint (Dkt. 30) is dismissed without prejudice — meaning Thompson is not permanently barred from refiling if he can cure the deficiencies.
  2. The IFP Applications (Dkts. 5, 8) and Motions to Appoint Counsel (Dkts. 16, 20) are denied as moot.
  3. Thompson is required to pay the unpaid balance of $344.21 of the statutory filing fee pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2), with the Clerk of Court directed to notify the authorities at the institution where Thompson is confined. Judgment is to be entered accordingly.
Reviewer note from the AI+
The opinion does not describe the substance of Thompson's underlying claims — only that his amended complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). The nature of the civil rights or other claims against Clay County Sheriffs and Correctional Facility and Mike Rapp is entirely unknown from this order alone, which accepts the R&R without elaborating on its reasoning. The topic tags 'civil-rights' and 'section-1983' are inferred from the prisoner-screening context and the defendants (a sheriff's facility and an individual), but the opinion does not explicitly identify the legal theories. Reviewer should consider whether to note this uncertainty to readers or flag the need to review the underlying R&R (Dkt. 32) for additional context.
The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.
Thompson v. Clay County Sheriffs and Correctional Facility · Court, Explained