Heggs v. Department of Corrections et al

Filing 48

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Report and Recommendation 47 is accepted; Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 21 is granted; Plaintiff's claims for monetary damages against Defendant Minnesota Department of Corrections and the individual Defendants in their official capacities are dismissed without prejudice; Plaintiff's claims for prospective relief are dismissed with prejudice; The claims against Defendant Sergeant Padelford in his individual capacity are d ismissed without prejudice; The claims against Lieutenant Spets, CPD Reed, and Sergeant Nerirer are dismissed without prejudice; and the claims against all other Defendants in their individual capacities are dismissed with prejudice. (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Katherine M. Menendez on 9/19/2022.(EYM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Terry Heggs,

Case No. 20-CV-2302 (KMM/ECW)
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER

Department of Corrections et al.,
Defendants.
The above matter comes before the Court upon the Report and
Recommendation (R&R) of United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright,
dated July 22, 2022. No objections have been filed to that R&R in the time period
permitted.
The Court reviews de novo any portion of the R&R to which specific objections
are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Minn. LR 72.2(b). In the absence of objections, the
Court reviews the R&R for clear error. Nur v. Olmsted County, 563 F. Supp. 3d 946, 949
(D. Minn. 2021) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) and Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795
(8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam)). Based on the Court's careful review of the R&R and the
record in this case, the Magistrate Judge committed no error, clear or otherwise.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 47] is ACCEPTED.
2. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 21] is GRANTED.

3. Plaintiff’s claims for monetary damages against Defendant Minnesota
Department of Corrections and the individual Defendants in their official
capacities are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
4. Plaintiff’s claims for prospective relief are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
5. The claims against Defendant Sergeant Padelford in his individual capacity are
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
6. The claims against Lieutenant Spets, CPD Reed, and Sergeant Nerirer are
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and
7. The claims against all other Defendants in their individual capacities are
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Let Judgment Be Entered Accordingly.
Date: September 19, 2022

s/ Katherine M. Menendez
Katherine M. Menendez
United States District Judge