Gorden v. Commissioner of Veterans Administration
DuWayne M. Gorden v. Commissioner of Veterans Administration, VA Higher-Level-Review-Panel, and John/Jane Doe
- Jeffrey Bryan
- 0:26-cv-02545
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Gorden v. Commissioner of Veterans Administration, Judge Bryan dismissed without prejudice DuWayne M. Gorden's petition seeking a court order forcing VA action on his benefits claim.
Veterans or other individuals who file mandamus petitions seeking to compel the Department of Veterans Affairs to act, particularly self-represented litigants in federal court in the District of Minnesota.
What happened
In Gorden v. Commissioner of Veterans Administration (Case No. 26-CV-2545), DuWayne M. Gorden, representing himself, filed a petition asking the federal court to issue a writ of mandamus — a court order compelling the Department of Veterans Affairs to take action — along with related motions including a request for a court-appointed lawyer and a request to proceed without paying court fees.
United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois issued a Report and Recommendation on June 17, 2026, recommending that Gorden's petition be denied and the case dismissed without prejudice (meaning Gorden is not permanently barred from bringing a new case). Gorden did not object to that recommendation within the allowed time, so the presiding judge reviewed it only for obvious errors.
Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan, finding no clear error in the Magistrate Judge's recommendation, adopted it in full on July 8, 2026. The court denied the petition and the motion for mandamus relief, dismissed the case without prejudice, and denied the remaining motions — for free court fees, for appointed counsel, and for copies of exhibits — as either denied or denied as no longer relevant given the dismissal.
The detailed version
- Gorden v. Commissioner of Veterans Administration · No. 0:26-cv-02545
- Jeffrey M. Bryan
- July 8, 2026
Background
Petitioner DuWayne M. Gorden, of Moose Lake, MN, proceeding without a lawyer (self-represented), filed a Petition for Preemptory Mandamus Relief against the Commissioner of Veterans Administration, the VA Higher-Level-Review-Panel, and unnamed John/Jane Doe respondents. A mandamus petition asks a court to issue a binding order compelling a government official or agency to perform a specific duty. Gorden also filed a Motion for Preemptory Mandamus Relief (Doc. No. 3), an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis — a request to litigate without paying court filing fees (Doc. No. 2) — a Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. No. 4), and a Motion for Copies of All Exhibits Received by the Court from the Plaintiff (Doc. No. 11).
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation
United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on June 17, 2026, recommending that the petition be denied and the case be dismissed without prejudice. The opinion does not recite the substantive reasoning from the R&R itself; the district court's order adopts it without restating the underlying analysis. Neither party filed objections within the time permitted under District of Minnesota Local Rule 72.2(b)(1).
Standard of Review
Because no timely objections were filed, Judge Bryan reviewed the R&R only for clear error, citing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996). This is a deferential standard; the court does not re-examine the merits but looks only for obvious mistakes.
Rulings
Finding no clear error, Judge Bryan:
- Adopted the R&R (Doc. No. 10).
- Denied the Petition (Doc. No. 1) and Motion for Preemptory Mandamus Relief (Doc. No. 3).
- Denied as moot the Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. No. 2) — meaning the court did not reach its merits because the dismissal rendered it irrelevant.
- Denied as moot the Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. No. 4), for the same reason.
- Denied the Motion for Copies of All Exhibits (Doc. No. 11).
- Dismissed the action without prejudice, meaning Gorden is not categorically barred from filing a new action.
Notes for Readers
The opinion does not describe the underlying facts of Gorden's VA claim, the specific duty he sought to compel, or the substantive legal basis for denying the mandamus petition. Those details are in the R&R (Doc. No. 10), which is not reproduced here. Because the case is dismissed without prejudice, the order does not foreclose future filings, though this summary does not assess the likelihood or viability of any such filing.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.