Dominic Young and Princeton Young v. Moshe Davis, Michael Wegner, Jeremy Riley,...

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Dominic Young and Civ. No. 25-1693 (PAM/EMB) Princeton Young, Plaintiffs, v. ORDER Moshe Davis, Michael Wegner, Jeremy Riley, Davis Mueller, David Mathes, and City of Minneapolis, Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Elsa M. Bullard dated October 2, 2025. (Docket No. 25.) The R&R recommends dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant Michael Wegner without prejudice. Plaintiffs did not file any objections to the R&R, and the time to do so has passed.

D. Minn. L.R. 72.2(b)(1).

This Court must review de novo any portion of an R&R to which specific objections are made, but in the absence of objections, the Court reviews the R&R only for clear error. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Minn. L.R. 72.2(b); see also Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996) (noting that district court need only review un-objected-to R&R for clear error). The Court has reviewed the R&R and finds no error, clear or otherwise, in the Magistrate Judge’s reasoning.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The R&R (Docket No. 25) is ADOPTED; and 2. Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant Michael Wegner are DIMISSED without prejudice.

Dated: October 29, 2025 s/ Paul A. Magnuson Paul A. Magnuson United States District Court Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Dominic Young and Civ. No. 25-1693 (PAM/EMB) Princeton Young, Plaintiffs, v. ORDER Moshe Davis, Michael Wegner, Jeremy Riley, Davis Mueller, David Mathes, and City of Minneapolis, Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Elsa M. Bullard dated October 2, 2025. (Docket No. 25.) The R&R recommends dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant Michael Wegner without prejudice. Plaintiffs did not file any objections to the R&R, and the time to do so has passed.

D. Minn. L.R. 72.2(b)(1).

This Court must review de novo any portion of an R&R to which specific objections are made, but in the absence of objections, the Court reviews the R&R only for clear error. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Minn. L.R. 72.2(b); see also Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996) (noting that district court need only review un-objected-to R&R for clear error). The Court has reviewed the R&R and finds no error, clear or otherwise, in the Magistrate Judge’s reasoning.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The R&R (Docket No. 25) is ADOPTED; and 2. Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant Michael Wegner are DIMISSED without prejudice.

Dated: October 29, 2025 s/ Paul A. Magnuson Paul A. Magnuson United States District Court Judge