Davis v. Hennepin, County of, et al

Filing 52

ORDER :IT IS ORDERED THAT:1.Defendants Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint [Docket No. 37] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.2.To the extent claims 1 through 22 of Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint state federal claims, those claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.3.To the extent claims 1 through 22 of Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint state claims premised on state law, those claims are REMANDED to the Fourth Judicial District of the State of Minnesota.4.The Clerk of Court shall mai l a certified copy of this Order to the clerk of the Fourth Judicial District of the State of Minnesota as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Joan N. Ericksen on April 14, 2010. (slf)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Leslie Davis, Plaintiff, v. Hennepin County, a political subdivision; and Commissioner Johnson, Commissioner Opat, Commissioner Stenglein, Commissioner Dorfman, Commissioner Koblick, Commissioner McLaughlin, Security Officer Robert Estes, Security Officer James Henderson, Security Supervisor Christopher Mara, Security Supervisor Thomas Billings, Security Officer Scott Elmore, Security Supervisor Bill Columbein, and all others unknown, all in their personal and professional capacities, Defendants. This case is before the Court on a Report and Recommendation issued by the Honorable Arthur J. Boylan, United States Magistrate Judge, on March 10, 2010. The magistrate judge recommended that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint be granted in part and denied in part. The magistrate judge recommended that claims 1 through 22 be dismissed without prejudice to the extent they state federal claims and that claims 1 through 22 be remanded to state court to the extent they state claims premised on state law. Plaintiff and Defendants objected to the Report and Recommendation. The Court has conducted a de novo review of the record. See D. Minn. LR 72.2(b). Based on that review, the Court modifies the dismissal of the federal claims to be with prejudice and otherwise adopts the Report and Recommendation [Docket No. 47]. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint [Docket No. 37] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Civil No. 08-5320 (JNE/AJB) ORDER 1 2. To the extent claims 1 through 22 of Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint state federal claims, those claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. To the extent claims 1 through 22 of Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint state claims premised on state law, those claims are REMANDED to the Fourth Judicial District of the State of Minnesota. The Clerk of Court shall mail a certified copy of this Order to the clerk of the Fourth Judicial District of the State of Minnesota as required by 28 U.S.C. 1447(c). 3. 4. LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. Dated: April 14, 2010 s/ Joan N. Ericksen JOAN N. ERICKSEN United States District Judge 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?