Hines v. State of Minnesota
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:18-cv-03250
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Hines v. State of Minnesota, Judge Tostrud accepted the recommendation, dismissed the complaint, and granted two dismissal motions while denying two other motions.
Fredrick DeWayne Hines’s claims against Shane E. Wernsing, the State Defendants, Lon Augdahl, Stephen Craane, and Deborah MacNeill were dismissed under the terms stated in the order. The complaint was dismissed, and Hines’s requests to amend the complaint and submit an exhibit were denied.
What happened
In Hines v. State of Minnesota, the court accepted a magistrate judge’s recommendation after no party objected. The court found no clear error in that recommendation.
The court granted Shane E. Wernsing’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the claims against him with prejudice. It granted the State Defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed those claims without prejudice. It also dismissed the claims against Lon Augdahl, Stephen Craane, and Deborah MacNeill without prejudice under a federal screening statute.
The court denied Fredrick DeWayne Hines’s request to file an amended complaint as futile, denied his request to submit an exhibit as moot, and dismissed the complaint. Judge Tostrud entered the order on March 6, 2020.
The detailed version
- Hines v. State of Minnesota · No. 0:18-cv-03250
- Eric Tostrud
- Mar. 6, 2020
Background
The court considered a January 31, 2020 Report and Recommendation from United States Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson. No party objected. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake in the recommendation.
The opinion does not describe the underlying claims in detail or decide whether those claims were legally or factually correct. The case caption lists the Minnesota Department of Corrections and numerous individual defendants. The order refers to a group of defendants as the “State Defendants.”
Rulings
The court found no clear error and accepted the Report and Recommendation.
The court made these specific rulings:
- Shane E. Wernsing’s motion to dismiss was granted. Hines’s claims against Wernsing were dismissed with prejudice. - The State Defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted. Hines’s claims against the State Defendants were dismissed without prejudice. - Hines’s claims against Lon Augdahl, Stephen Craane, and Deborah MacNeill were dismissed without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), a provision requiring dismissal of certain claims filed without the required filing fee when they meet specified statutory conditions. - Hines’s motion for leave to file a first amended complaint was denied as futile. - Hines’s motion to present an attached exhibit was denied as moot, meaning the court found that ruling unnecessary in light of its other rulings. - Hines’s complaint was dismissed.
The footnote states that the complaint incorrectly identified Defendant Stephen Craane as “Stephan Cranna.”
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.