Favors v. Lanin
Favors v. Lanin
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Joseph Anthony Favors, Civ. No. 24-2709 (JWB/LIB) Plaintiff, v. ORDER ACCEPTING Mike Lanin, Individual and Official REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Capacity as Security Lead CPS of MSOP; OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE Jodi Harpstead, Individual and Official Capacity as Commissioner DHS/MSOP; and Nancy Johnston, Individual and Official Capacity as Executive Director of DHS/CPS of MSOP, and Successor in Office, Defendants.
United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) on March 4, 2025. (Doc. No. 36.) No objections have been filed to that R&R in the time permitted. Absent timely objections, the R&R is reviewed 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, no clear error is found.
Based on the R&R of the Magistrate Judge, and on all the files, records, and proceedings in this case, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The March 4, 2025 Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 36) is ACCEPTED; 2. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 21) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as set forth in the R&R; 3. Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims for monetary damages against all Defendants in their “official capacity” are DISMISSED with prejudice; 4. Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims for injunctive relief against Defendants Harpstead and Johnston in their “official capacity” are DISMISSED without prejudice; 5. Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims against Defendants’ Harpstead and Johnston in their “individual capacity” (regardless of the relief sought) are DISMISSED without prejudice; 6. Plaintiff’s § 1983 First Amendment retaliation claim seeking injunctive relief against Defendant Lanin in his “official capacity” is DISMISSED without prejudice; 7. Plaintiff’s § 1983 First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant Lanin in his “individual capacity” (regardless of the relief sought) is DISMISSED without prejudice; 8. Plaintiff’s § 1983 Eighth Amendment retaliation claim for injunctive relief against Defendant Lanin in his “official capacity” is DISMISSED with prejudice; 9. Plaintiff’s § 1983 Eighth Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant Lanin in his “individual capacity” (regardless of the relief sought) is DISMISSED with prejudice; 10. Plaintiff’s § 1983 Equal Protection claim seeking injunctive relief from Defendant Lanin in his “official capacity” is DISMISSED without prejudice; 11. Plaintiff’s § 1983 Equal Protection claim against Defendant Lanin in his “individual capacity” (regardless of the relief sought) is DISMISSED without prejudice; and 12. Plaintiff’s state law claims are DISMISSED without prejudice.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Date: April 9, 2025 s/ Jerry W. Blackwell JERRY W. BLACKWELL United States District Judge
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Joseph Anthony Favors, Civ. No. 24-2709 (JWB/LIB) Plaintiff, v. ORDER ACCEPTING Mike Lanin, Individual and Official REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Capacity as Security Lead CPS of MSOP; OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE Jodi Harpstead, Individual and Official Capacity as Commissioner DHS/MSOP; and Nancy Johnston, Individual and Official Capacity as Executive Director of DHS/CPS of MSOP, and Successor in Office, Defendants.
United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) on March 4, 2025. (Doc. No. 36.) No objections have been filed to that R&R in the time permitted. Absent timely objections, the R&R is reviewed 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, no clear error is found.
Based on the R&R of the Magistrate Judge, and on all the files, records, and proceedings in this case, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The March 4, 2025 Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 36) is ACCEPTED; 2. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 21) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as set forth in the R&R; 3. Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims for monetary damages against all Defendants in their “official capacity” are DISMISSED with prejudice; 4. Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims for injunctive relief against Defendants Harpstead and Johnston in their “official capacity” are DISMISSED without prejudice; 5. Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims against Defendants’ Harpstead and Johnston in their “individual capacity” (regardless of the relief sought) are DISMISSED without prejudice; 6. Plaintiff’s § 1983 First Amendment retaliation claim seeking injunctive relief against Defendant Lanin in his “official capacity” is DISMISSED without prejudice; 7. Plaintiff’s § 1983 First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant Lanin in his “individual capacity” (regardless of the relief sought) is DISMISSED without prejudice; 8. Plaintiff’s § 1983 Eighth Amendment retaliation claim for injunctive relief against Defendant Lanin in his “official capacity” is DISMISSED with prejudice; 9. Plaintiff’s § 1983 Eighth Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant Lanin in his “individual capacity” (regardless of the relief sought) is DISMISSED with prejudice; 10. Plaintiff’s § 1983 Equal Protection claim seeking injunctive relief from Defendant Lanin in his “official capacity” is DISMISSED without prejudice; 11. Plaintiff’s § 1983 Equal Protection claim against Defendant Lanin in his “individual capacity” (regardless of the relief sought) is DISMISSED without prejudice; and 12. Plaintiff’s state law claims are DISMISSED without prejudice.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Date: April 9, 2025 s/ Jerry W. Blackwell JERRY W. BLACKWELL United States District Judge
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.