Campbell v. City of Duluth
Clifton Scott Campbell v. City of Duluth; Officer Kneeland; Officer Lemendger; Officer Schutte; Former Chief Tusken
- John Tunheim
- 0:25-cv-01476
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 5
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Campbell v. City of Duluth, Judge Tunheim adopted a magistrate's recommendation and dismissed all of pro se plaintiff Clifton Scott Campbell's claims without prejudice, rejecting his late objection.
Pro se litigants who file objections to magistrate judge recommendations should be aware that objections must be filed within 14 days and must raise new arguments — late or repetitive objections receive less searching court review. Individuals with civil rights claims involving police use of force, municipal liability under Monell, or state law claims for emotional distress and defamation against local government defendants may find the dismissal grounds discussed in the underlying R&R (not fully detailed in this order) relevant.
What happened
In Campbell v. City of Duluth (Civil No. 25-1476), pro se plaintiff Clifton Scott Campbell sued the City of Duluth, Officer Kneeland, Officer Lemendger, Officer Schutte, and Former Chief Tusken, asserting claims of excessive force, failure to intervene, intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, and civil rights violations under federal law (42 U.S.C. § 1983). The defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint, and United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on October 15, 2025, recommending that the motions be granted in part and denied in part, and separately ordering that Campbell's motions to amend his complaint be denied.
Campbell filed an objection to the R&R, but it was more than three weeks late — the deadline was 14 days after the R&R was issued. Because the objection was untimely and merely repeated arguments already considered by the Magistrate Judge, the district court applied a less demanding 'clear error' standard of review rather than reviewing the issues fresh. The court found no clear error in the R&R.
Judge Tunheim overruled Campbell's objection, adopted the R&R, and dismissed all of Campbell's claims — including multiple excessive force claims against Officer Kneeland, failure to intervene claims against Officers Lemendger and Schutte, § 1983 and Monell claims against the City of Duluth and Former Chief Tusken, and state law claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and defamation against all defendants — without prejudice, meaning Campbell is not barred from refiling. The motions to dismiss were denied to the extent the defendants sought dismissal with prejudice.
The detailed version
- Campbell v. City of Duluth · No. 0:25-cv-01476
- John Tunheim
- Feb. 23, 2026
Background
Pro se plaintiff Clifton Scott Campbell filed suit against the City of Duluth, Officer Kneeland, Officer Lemendger, Officer Schutte, and Former Chief Tusken. His complaint alleged multiple claims arising from what appears to be a use-of-force incident during an arrest. The specific claims included:
- Excessive force against Officer Kneeland on four separate bases: (1) twisting Campbell's arm too forcefully behind his back; (2) punching Campbell in the jaw; (3) pushing Campbell to the ground while he resisted arrest; and (4) placing a hand and arm underneath Campbell's chin. - Failure to intervene against Officers Lemendger and Schutte. - § 1983 (civil rights) claims — Section 1983 of Title 42 of the U.S. Code allows individuals to sue state or local officials for violating their constitutional rights — against the City of Duluth under Monell (a legal doctrine allowing municipalities to be sued under § 1983 when a policy or custom caused the rights violation) and against Former Chief Tusken in both his individual and official capacities. - State law intentional infliction of emotional distress against all defendants. - State law defamation against Officer Schutte, the City of Duluth, and Former Chief Tusken.
Campbell also filed three separate motions to amend his complaint (Docket Nos. 28, 32, and 36).
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation
On October 15, 2025, United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois issued an Order and Report and Recommendation (R&R). The R&R: (1) ordered that all three of Campbell's motions to amend the complaint be denied; and (2) recommended that the defendants' motions to dismiss be granted in part and denied in part — specifically, granting dismissal of all claims but denying dismissal with prejudice.
Campbell's Objection
Campbell filed an objection to the R&R on November 21, 2025. The deadline for objections under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2) and District of Minnesota Local Rule 72.2(b)(1) is 14 days from issuance of the R&R; Campbell's filing came more than three weeks after that deadline expired, making it untimely.
Additionally, the objection raised arguments about the veracity of body-worn camera and dash-cam footage — arguments that had already been presented to and considered by Magistrate Judge Brisbois.
Standard of Review Applied
Because Campbell's objection was both untimely and repetitive of arguments already before the Magistrate Judge, the district court did not conduct a de novo (fresh, independent) review. Instead, it applied the more deferential 'clear error' standard, under which the court upholds the R&R unless it finds a clear mistake on the face of the record. The court cited Montgomery v. Compass Airlines, LLC, 98 F. Supp. 3d 1012, 1017 (D. Minn. 2015), and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3).
Ruling
Judge Tunheim found no clear error in the R&R, concluded it was fully supported by the record and applicable legal principles, overruled Campbell's objection, and adopted the R&R in full.
Claims Against Officers Kneeland, Lemendger, and Schutte
The motion to dismiss filed by Officers Kneeland, Lemendger, and Schutte (Docket No. 7) was granted in part and denied in part:
- All four excessive force claims against Officer Kneeland: dismissed without prejudice - Failure to intervene claims against Officers Lemendger and Schutte: dismissed without prejudice - State law intentional infliction of emotional distress against Officers Kneeland, Lemendger, and Schutte: dismissed without prejudice - State law defamation against Officer Schutte: dismissed without prejudice - The motion was denied to the extent it sought dismissal with prejudice.
Claims Against the City of Duluth and Former Chief Tusken
The motion to dismiss filed by the City of Duluth and Former Chief Tusken (Docket No. 15) was also granted in part and denied in part:
- § 1983 Monell claims against the City of Duluth: dismissed without prejudice - § 1983 claim against Former Chief Tusken (individual and official capacity): dismissed without prejudice - State law intentional infliction of emotional distress against City of Duluth and Former Chief Tusken: dismissed without prejudice - State law defamation against City of Duluth and Former Chief Tusken: dismissed without prejudice - The motion was denied to the extent it sought dismissal with prejudice.
Effect of the Ruling
All of Campbell's claims have been dismissed without prejudice. A dismissal without prejudice means Campbell is not permanently barred from pursuing these claims; he may potentially refile. The court directed that judgment be entered accordingly.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.