Craven v. Stearns County Jail
- Jeffrey Bryan
- 0:25-cv-01107
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Craven v. Stearns County Jail, Judge Bryan adopted the recommendation, partly granted and partly denied the dismissal motion, and dismissed the action without prejudice.
Curt Matthew Craven’s action was dismissed without prejudice, and Stearns County Jail’s motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part.
What happened
In Craven v. Stearns County Jail, Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois recommended granting the jail’s motion to dismiss in part and denying it in part, with dismissal of Curt Matthew Craven’s claims without prejudice.
Neither party objected to the recommendation. The court therefore reviewed it for clear error and found none.
Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan adopted the recommendation, granted the motion to the extent it sought dismissal without prejudice, denied it to the extent it sought dismissal with prejudice, and dismissed the action without prejudice.
The detailed version
- Craven v. Stearns County Jail · No. 0:25-cv-01107
- Jeffrey M. Bryan
- July 21, 2025
Background
Curt Matthew Craven, who represented himself, sued Stearns County Jail. The court considered the jail’s motion to dismiss and a report and recommendation from United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois.
Recommendation and review
The magistrate judge recommended granting the motion to dismiss in part and denying it in part, and dismissing Craven’s claims without prejudice. Neither party filed an objection. Because there were no timely objections, Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake, and found none.
Ruling
The court adopted the recommendation. It granted the jail’s motion to the extent the motion sought dismissal of Craven’s claims without prejudice, and denied the motion to the extent it sought dismissal with prejudice. The court dismissed the action without prejudice. The opinion does not state the underlying basis for the claims or the motion to dismiss.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.