Laughlin et al v. Stuart et al

Filing 438

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The Objections to the Report and Recommendation 433 are OVERRULED. The Reports and Recommendations 420 421 are ACCEPTED in full. Defendant Tessa Villegas's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' S econd Amended Complaint 321 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART AS MOOT. Plaintiffs Laughlin and Hari's claims against Defendant Villegas are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The County Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 357 is GRANTED. Plaintiffs Laughlin and Hari's claims against the County Defendants are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Eric C. Tostrud on 3/4/2022.(RMM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Malik Laughlin, Kenneth Lewis, and Emily
Claire Hari, formerly known as Michael
Hari,
Plaintiff,

File No. 19-cv-2547 (ECT/TNL)

ORDER ACCEPTING
REPORTS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

v.
James Stuart, Sheriff of Anoka County;
Jonathon Evans, Lt. Sheila Larson, SGT
Carrie Wood, Tessa Villergas, and Jesse
Rasmussen, Deputy Sheriffs of Anoka
County,

Defendants.
________________________________________________________________________
Plaintiffs Malik Laughlin, Kenneth Lewis,1 and Emily Claire Hari filed this lawsuit
against several Anoka County law enforcement officials, claiming that the officials
violated their constitutional rights while Plaintiffs were housed in the Anoka County Jail.
See generally Second Am. Compl. [ECF No. 311]. The case is before the Court on two
Reports and Recommendations (“R&R”) issued by Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung. See
ECF Nos. 420, 421.
In the first R&R, Magistrate Judge Leung recommends granting the County
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 357] and dismissing the claims
asserted by Laughlin and Hari against the County Defendants with prejudice. ECF No.

1

On January 11, 2022, Plaintiff Lewis’s claims against Defendant Villergas and the
Anoka County Defendants were dismissed pursuant to stipulation. See ECF No. 418.

420. Hari filed objections to this R&R. ECF No. 433. Laughlin did not object. The
County Defendants filed a response to Hari’s objections. ECF No. 437. Because Hari has
objected, the Court is required to review the Report and Recommendation de novo pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 72.2(b)(3). The Court has undertaken that de
novo review and concludes that Magistrate Judge Leung’s analysis and conclusions are
correct.
In the second R&R,  Magistrate Judge Leung recommends granting in part and
denying in part as moot Defendant Tessa Villegas’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Second
Amended Complaint [ECF No. 321], and dismissing Laughlin and Hari’s claims against
Villegas without prejudice. See ECF No. 421 at 8. No party has objected to that R&R,
and it is therefore reviewed for clear error. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Grinder v. Gammon,
73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam). Finding no clear error, that Report and
Recommendation [ECF No. 421] will be accepted. 
Therefore, based upon all of the files, records, and proceedings in the abovecaptioned matter, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1.

The Objections to the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 433] are

OVERRULED;
2.

The Reports and Recommendations [ECF Nos. 420, 421] are ACCEPTED

3.

Defendant Tessa Villegas’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Second Amended

in full;

Complaint [ECF No. 321] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART AS MOOT;

2

4.

Plaintiffs Laughlin and Hari’s claims against Defendant Villegas are

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE;
5.

The County Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 357] is

GRANTED;
6.

Plaintiffs Laughlin and Hari’s claims against the County Defendants are

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.

Dated: March 4, 2022

s/ Eric C. Tostrud
Eric C. Tostrud
United States District Court

3