Nelson v. Dakota County

Background

Plaintiff Damien Lashaun Nelson, a prisoner housed at MCF Rush City at the time of the order, filed suit against Dakota County; the Dakota County Sheriff's Office, Minnesota; unnamed Dakota County employees and correctional officers (John Does and Jane Does) in both individual and official capacities; MEnd Correctional Care PLLC (a medical services provider); and unnamed MEnd employees in individual and official capacities. The nature of Nelson's underlying claims is not described in this order, but the defendants named suggest the case involves conditions of confinement, medical care, or related treatment at a county correctional facility.

Procedural History

Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 25). Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois — a magistrate judge who assists the district judge and issues non-binding recommendations on dispositive motions — issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on October 8, 2025 (ECF No. 47), setting out how he believed the motion should be resolved. The R&R was mailed to Nelson at MCF Rush City on October 24, 2025.

Nelson filed a letter dated November 20, 2025 (ECF No. 48), but did not object to or address the R&R. In his letter, Nelson claimed he lacked access to a law library and that prison officials were deliberately interfering with his ability to pursue the case. Judge Tostrud noted that these allegations were conclusory, did not address the merits, and that Nelson's ability to file the letter demonstrated he had the ability to lodge objections.

Standard of Review

Because no party filed objections to the R&R within the required period, Judge Tostrud reviewed it only for clear error, applying Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and the standard articulated in Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996). This is a more deferential standard than de novo (fresh) review, which would apply if objections had been filed.

Ruling

Finding no clear error, Judge Tostrud accepted the R&R as modified. He granted in part and denied in part the defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Nelson's complaint (ECF No. 1) was dismissed without prejudice — meaning the dismissal does not bar Nelson from filing a new lawsuit raising the same or similar claims, provided he can cure the deficiencies identified in the R&R. The court directed that judgment be entered accordingly.

Limitations of This Summary

This order does not describe the specific grounds on which the motion to dismiss was granted or denied, the particular claims at issue, or the modifications made to the R&R. Those details appear in Magistrate Judge Brisbois's October 8, 2025 Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 47), which is not reproduced here. Readers seeking the full reasoning should consult that document.