Favors v. Lanin

Background

Joseph Anthony Favors brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing certain civil-rights claims against government officials, against Mike Lanin, Jodi Harpstead, and Nancy Johnston. The caption identifies the defendants as being sued in their individual and official capacities. The opinion lists claims for monetary damages, injunctive relief, First Amendment retaliation, Eighth Amendment retaliation, equal protection, and violations of state law.

United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois issued a Report and Recommendation on March 4, 2025. No objections were filed within the permitted time. The district court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none.

Ruling

The court accepted the Report and Recommendation and ruled that the defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part.

The court ordered the following:

- Favors’s § 1983 claims for monetary damages against all defendants in their official capacities were dismissed with prejudice. - Favors’s § 1983 claims for injunctive relief against Harpstead and Johnston in their official capacities were dismissed without prejudice. - Favors’s § 1983 claims against Harpstead and Johnston in their individual capacities, regardless of the relief sought, were dismissed without prejudice. - Favors’s § 1983 First Amendment retaliation claim seeking injunctive relief against Lanin in his official capacity was dismissed without prejudice. - Favors’s § 1983 First Amendment retaliation claim against Lanin in his individual capacity, regardless of the relief sought, was dismissed without prejudice. - Favors’s § 1983 Eighth Amendment retaliation claim seeking injunctive relief against Lanin in his official capacity was dismissed with prejudice. - Favors’s § 1983 Eighth Amendment retaliation claim against Lanin in his individual capacity, regardless of the relief sought, was dismissed with prejudice. - Favors’s § 1983 equal-protection claim seeking injunctive relief from Lanin in his official capacity was dismissed without prejudice. - Favors’s § 1983 equal-protection claim against Lanin in his individual capacity, regardless of the relief sought, was dismissed without prejudice. - Favors’s state-law claims were dismissed without prejudice.

The opinion orders that judgment be entered accordingly. The order itself does not state which claims, if any, remained after these rulings; it refers to the Report and Recommendation for the basis of the partial grant and partial denial.

Classification

This is a procedural order because the court ruled on a motion to dismiss and accepted a recommendation after clear-error review. The provided order does not itself decide the underlying merits of the claims.