As-Sidiq v. Melton
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
La’Quedrick As-Sidiq, Civ. No. 25-1978 (JWB-SGE) Plaintiff, v. ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Brian Melton and Caitlin Hurlock1, OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE Defendants.
La’Quedrick As-Sidiq, pro se Plaintiff.
United States Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) on May 14, 2025. (Doc. No. 4). 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 May 14, 2025 R&R (Doc. No. 4) is ACCEPTED; Plaintiff uses two different spellings for Ms. Hurlock’s first name in the Complaint. The Court will use the spelling indicated in the docket for the above- captioned case.
2. Plaintiff La’Quedrick As-Sidiq’s Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;2 and 3. Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. No. 2) is DENIED as moot.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Date: June 12, 2025 s/ Jerry W. Blackwell JERRY W. BLACKWELL United States District Judge
2 This dismissal is based solely on the grounds that the only named Defendants are prosecutors entitled to absolute immunity from damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for actions taken in their prosecutorial roles. This Order does not preclude Plaintiff from asserting claims against other individuals in a separate action, to the extent he believes other allegations in the Complaint—such as denial of medical care—support a claim against properly named defendants.
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
La’Quedrick As-Sidiq, Civ. No. 25-1978 (JWB-SGE) Plaintiff, v. ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Brian Melton and Caitlin Hurlock1, OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE Defendants.
La’Quedrick As-Sidiq, pro se Plaintiff.
United States Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) on May 14, 2025. (Doc. No. 4). 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 May 14, 2025 R&R (Doc. No. 4) is ACCEPTED; Plaintiff uses two different spellings for Ms. Hurlock’s first name in the Complaint. The Court will use the spelling indicated in the docket for the above- captioned case.
2. Plaintiff La’Quedrick As-Sidiq’s Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;2 and 3. Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. No. 2) is DENIED as moot.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Date: June 12, 2025 s/ Jerry W. Blackwell JERRY W. BLACKWELL United States District Judge
2 This dismissal is based solely on the grounds that the only named Defendants are prosecutors entitled to absolute immunity from damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for actions taken in their prosecutorial roles. This Order does not preclude Plaintiff from asserting claims against other individuals in a separate action, to the extent he believes other allegations in the Complaint—such as denial of medical care—support a claim against properly named defendants.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.