Hughes v. Rish
- Nancy Brasel
- 0:24-cv-04564
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Hughes v. Rish, Judge Brasel granted defendants' motion to dismiss and dismissed the case without prejudice.
Plaintiff Tederian Charles Hughes, whose lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice, and defendants Kris Rish, Joel Smith, John Swenson, Crystal Hansen, and Chantel Wolak, whose motion to dismiss was granted.
What happened
Hughes v. Rish (Case No. 24-CV-4564) is a federal lawsuit filed by Tederian Charles Hughes against five defendants — Kris Rish, Joel Smith, John Swenson, Crystal Hansen, and Chantel Wolak — in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case, and United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois issued a Report and Recommendation on June 2, 2025, concluding that the motion should be granted. No party objected to that recommendation.
Because neither side objected to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the district court reviewed it only for clear error — a lower standard of review than would apply if objections had been filed. The court found no clear error in the Magistrate Judge's analysis.
Judge Nancy E. Brasel accepted the Report and Recommendation, granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, and dismissed the case without prejudice. A dismissal without prejudice means the plaintiff is not automatically barred from filing a new lawsuit raising the same claims, subject to any applicable deadlines or other legal requirements.
The detailed version
- Hughes v. Rish · No. 0:24-cv-04564
- Nancy Brasel
- Aug. 8, 2025
Background
Plaintiff Tederian Charles Hughes filed this lawsuit in the District of Minnesota against five named defendants: Kris Rish, Joel Smith, John Swenson, Crystal Hansen, and Chantel Wolak. The opinion does not describe the underlying facts or the nature of the claims; the order is limited to the disposition of the defendants' motion to dismiss and the acceptance of a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation.
Procedural History
Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 10). United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois issued a Report and Recommendation on June 2, 2025 (ECF No. 19), recommending that the motion be granted. No party — neither the plaintiff nor any defendant — filed objections to that Report and Recommendation.
Standard of Review
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), when no party objects to a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the district court reviews it only for clear error. This is a deferential standard: the district court will adopt the recommendation unless it contains an obvious mistake or misapplication of law. The court cited Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996), for this proposition.
Ruling
Judge Brasel found no clear error in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and accepted it in full. The court:
- Accepted the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 19);
- Granted defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 10); and
- Dismissed the case without prejudice.
A dismissal without prejudice does not bar the plaintiff from refiling the lawsuit, unlike a dismissal with prejudice, though other legal constraints (such as statutes of limitations) may still apply.
What Is Not Known
The opinion does not state the legal basis for the motion to dismiss (e.g., lack of jurisdiction, failure to state a claim, or another ground), the nature of Hughes's underlying claims, or the reasons articulated in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. Readers seeking that analysis would need to review ECF No. 19.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.