Samaan v. Columbia Heights, The City of
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:25-cv-00449
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Samaan v. Columbia Heights, Judge Tostrud dismissed the civil-rights motion without prejudice and denied the application to proceed without paying fees.
The order affected Saddam Samaan Daoud Samaan by dismissing his § 1983 civil-rights motion without prejudice and denying his application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs. The listed defendants were not granted judgment on the merits in this order.
What happened
In Samaan v. Columbia Heights, Saddam Samaan Daoud Samaan brought a motion seeking judgment for a civil-rights violation under federal law against the listed defendants.
A magistrate judge recommended dismissing the motion and denying Samaan’s application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs. No party objected, so the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none.
Judge Eric C. Tostrud accepted the recommendation, dismissed the civil-rights motion without prejudice under the federal statute cited in the order, and denied the application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs.
The detailed version
- Samaan v. Columbia Heights, The City of · No. 0:25-cv-00449
- Eric Tostrud
- Mar. 27, 2025
Background
Saddam Samaan Daoud Samaan filed a motion titled “Motion for Judgment for Civil Rights Violation Pursuant to 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983” against the City of Columbia Heights, the Columbia Heights Police Department, Matt Markham, Paul Bonesteel, Justin Pletcher, and other unknown law-enforcement defendants. The opinion does not describe the underlying alleged civil-rights violation.
Report and Recommendation
Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko issued a Report and Recommendation on February 28, 2025. No party objected. The district court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and found no clear error.
Ruling
The court accepted the Report and Recommendation. It dismissed Samaan’s civil-rights motion without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). It separately denied Samaan’s application to proceed in the district court without prepaying fees or costs. The order does not provide additional reasoning about the claims or explain whether the dismissal was based on a particular defect.
Effect
The civil-rights motion was dismissed without prejudice, meaning the order did not state that refiling was barred. The application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs was denied.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.