Brooks v. Lindlbauer
Brooks v. Lindlbauer
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Joshua Adam Brooks, Civ. No. 22-2011 (JWB/LIB) Plaintiff, v. ORDER ACCEPTING David A. Lindlbauer, in his individual and REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION official capacity; Jana Brister-Korby, OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Skye), in her individual and official capacity; Charles S. Fai, in his individual and official capacity; Mindy C. Seigert- Horgeshimer, in her individual and official capacity; and Scott E. Giannini, in his individual and official capacity, Defendants.
The above matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois dated March 24, 2023. (Doc.
No. 34.) No objections have been filed to that R&R in the time permitted. In the absence of timely objections, the Court reviews an R&R for clear error. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996). Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds no clear error.
Based on the R&R of the Magistrate Judge, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The March 24, 2023 Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 34) is ACCEPTED; 2. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 12) is GRANTED as follows: a. Plaintiff’s § 1983 official-capacity claims seeking monetary damages as alleged against all Defendants are DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; b. Plaintiff’s § 1983 official-capacity claims for injunctive and declaratory relief as alleged against all Defendants are DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; c. Plaintiff’s § 1983 individual-capacity claims for monetary damages, injunctive relief, and declaratory relief as alleged against all Defendants are DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; d. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress as alleged in the Complaint; 3. Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. No. 18) is DENIED; and 4. Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Deadline (Doc. No. 26) is DENIED as moot, since Plaintiff’s Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 30) was filed and considered prior to the Report and Recommendation being issued.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Date: April 17, 2023 _s/ Jerry W. Blackwell_______ JERRY W. BLACKWELL United States District Judge
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Joshua Adam Brooks, Civ. No. 22-2011 (JWB/LIB) Plaintiff, v. ORDER ACCEPTING David A. Lindlbauer, in his individual and REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION official capacity; Jana Brister-Korby, OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Skye), in her individual and official capacity; Charles S. Fai, in his individual and official capacity; Mindy C. Seigert- Horgeshimer, in her individual and official capacity; and Scott E. Giannini, in his individual and official capacity, Defendants.
The above matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois dated March 24, 2023. (Doc.
No. 34.) No objections have been filed to that R&R in the time permitted. In the absence of timely objections, the Court reviews an R&R for clear error. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996). Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds no clear error.
Based on the R&R of the Magistrate Judge, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The March 24, 2023 Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 34) is ACCEPTED; 2. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 12) is GRANTED as follows: a. Plaintiff’s § 1983 official-capacity claims seeking monetary damages as alleged against all Defendants are DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; b. Plaintiff’s § 1983 official-capacity claims for injunctive and declaratory relief as alleged against all Defendants are DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; c. Plaintiff’s § 1983 individual-capacity claims for monetary damages, injunctive relief, and declaratory relief as alleged against all Defendants are DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; d. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress as alleged in the Complaint; 3. Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. No. 18) is DENIED; and 4. Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Deadline (Doc. No. 26) is DENIED as moot, since Plaintiff’s Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 30) was filed and considered prior to the Report and Recommendation being issued.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Date: April 17, 2023 _s/ Jerry W. Blackwell_______ JERRY W. BLACKWELL United States District Judge
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.