Court, Explained
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Back to docket
Procedural orderFiled Oct. 29, 2025

Dominic Young and Princeton Young v. Davis

Full caption

Dominic Young and Princeton Young v. Moshe Davis, Michael Wegner, Jeremy Riley, Davis Mueller, David Mathes, and City of Minneapolis

Judge
Paul Magnuson
Docket
0:25-cv-01693
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureMotion to DismissCivil RightsSection 1983
In one sentence

In Young v. Davis, Judge Magnuson adopted a magistrate judge's recommendation and dismissed claims against Defendant Michael Wegner without prejudice.

Who this affects

Plaintiffs Dominic Young and Princeton Young, whose claims against Defendant Michael Wegner are dismissed without prejudice, and Defendant Michael Wegner, who is removed from the case at this stage. The remaining defendants and claims are not affected by this order.

What happened

In Young v. Davis (Civil No. 25-1693), Dominic Young and Princeton Young filed suit against several defendants, including Moshe Davis, Michael Wegner, Jeremy Riley, Davis Mueller, David Mathes, and the City of Minneapolis. A magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation on October 2, 2025, recommending that the plaintiffs' claims against Defendant Michael Wegner be dismissed without prejudice — meaning the plaintiffs are not barred from refiling those claims. The plaintiffs did not file any objections to that recommendation within the required time period.

Under federal rules, when no objections are filed to a magistrate judge's recommendation, the presiding district court judge reviews it only for clear error, rather than conducting a full independent review. The court found no error — clear or otherwise — in the magistrate judge's reasoning and therefore accepted the recommendation in full.

Judge Paul A. Magnuson issued this order on October 29, 2025, formally adopting the Report and Recommendation and dismissing Plaintiffs' claims against Defendant Michael Wegner without prejudice. Because the opinion does not detail the underlying facts or legal basis for the dismissal (those appear in the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation, which is not reproduced here), the specific reasons for the dismissal are not available from this order alone.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Dominic Young and Princeton Young v. Davis · No. 0:25-cv-01693
Judge
Paul Magnuson
Date
Oct. 29, 2025

Background

Plaintiffs Dominic Young and Princeton Young brought suit against multiple defendants: Moshe Davis, Michael Wegner, Jeremy Riley, Davis Mueller, David Mathes, and the City of Minneapolis. The opinion does not describe the underlying facts or the nature of the claims in this order, as the substance of the case is addressed in the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation (R&R), which is not reproduced here.

Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation

United States Magistrate Judge Elsa M. Bullard issued an R&R on October 2, 2025, recommending dismissal of Plaintiffs' claims against Defendant Michael Wegner without prejudice. A dismissal without prejudice does not bar the plaintiffs from refiling those claims at a later time, subject to applicable procedural rules and statutes of limitations.

Standard of Review

Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and District of Minnesota Local Rule 72.2(b), the district court is required to conduct a de novo (fresh, independent) review of any portion of an R&R to which a party files specific objections. Where no objections are filed, the court reviews the R&R only for clear error. Here, Plaintiffs did not file any objections within the time allowed under Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), so the court applied the more limited clear-error standard of review, citing Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996).

Ruling

Judge Magnuson found no error — clear or otherwise — in Magistrate Judge Bullard's reasoning. Accordingly, the court (1) adopted the R&R in full, and (2) dismissed Plaintiffs' claims against Defendant Michael Wegner without prejudice.

Limitations of This Summary

Because this order is a brief adoption of the R&R rather than a full merits opinion, the specific legal grounds for dismissal of the claims against Wegner are not set out here. Those grounds appear in the magistrate judge's R&R (Docket No. 25), which was not reproduced in the provided opinion text. The claims against the remaining defendants — Moshe Davis, Jeremy Riley, Davis Mueller, David Mathes, and the City of Minneapolis — are not addressed in this order and appear to remain pending.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.