Evangelista v. Federal Bureau of Prisons
- Jeffrey Bryan
- 0:25-cv-00778
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Evangelista v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan adopted a magistrate judge's recommendation and dismissed Wayne Evangelista's lawsuit without prejudice, meaning he may be able to refile, because the case was found to be moot and to have failed to state a valid legal claim.
Wayne Evangelista, a person who filed a legal action against the Federal Bureau of Prisons and the Warden of F.P.C. Duluth, likely a federal inmate or former inmate given the nature of the respondents. His case has been dismissed, though without prejudice.
What happened
In Evangelista v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, Wayne Evangelista filed a lawsuit against the Federal Bureau of Prisons and the Warden of F.P.C. Duluth, a federal prison camp in Duluth, Minnesota. A magistrate judge (a lower-level federal judicial officer who assists with cases) issued a Report and Recommendation on January 20, 2026, advising that the case be dismissed on two grounds: mootness (meaning the legal dispute no longer has any live practical effect) and failure to state a claim (meaning the facts alleged do not add up to a recognized legal wrong).
Neither Evangelista nor the government objected to the magistrate judge's recommendation within the allowed time. When no objections are filed, the reviewing judge checks only for clear, obvious errors rather than conducting a full independent review.
Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan found no clear error in the magistrate's analysis and adopted the recommendation in full. The defendants' motion to dismiss was granted and the entire action was dismissed without prejudice, which means Evangelista is not permanently barred from raising these issues again in a future lawsuit, though any future filing would face the same legal standards.
The detailed version
Case: Evangelista v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, The Warden of F.P.C. Duluth, No. 25-CV-0778 (JMB/SGE), United States District Court, District of Minnesota.
Presiding Judge: Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan. The matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins, who issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on January 20, 2026.
Background: Wayne Evangelista, the petitioner (the party who filed the action), brought this case against the Federal Bureau of Prisons and the Warden of F.P.C. Duluth. The opinion does not describe the underlying facts or the specific relief Evangelista sought, so the nature of his claims cannot be summarized from this order alone.
Magistrate's R&R: Magistrate Judge Elkins recommended dismissal without prejudice on two independent grounds: (1) mootness under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which governs dismissals for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction — a court lacks jurisdiction to hear a case when the controversy is no longer live; and (2) failure to state a claim, which means the factual allegations, even taken as true, do not amount to a cognizable legal claim.
No Objections Filed: Neither party objected to the R&R within the period set by Local Rule 72.2(b)(1). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and Eighth Circuit precedent (citing Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793 (8th Cir. 1996)), when no timely objections are filed, the district court reviews the R&R only for clear error rather than conducting de novo (fresh, independent) review.
Court's Ruling: Judge Bryan found no clear error and adopted the R&R in full. The defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 22) was granted. The action was dismissed without prejudice, meaning Evangelista is not permanently barred from reasserting his claims, though any refiling would need to overcome the same legal hurdles that doomed this action.
Note on Scope: Because this order is essentially a one-page adoption of a magistrate's recommendation with no independent legal analysis, the substance of Evangelista's claims, the specific facts, and the detailed reasoning for finding mootness or failure to state a claim are contained in the R&R (Doc. No. 32), which is not reproduced here.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.