Nur v. Olmsted County
- Wilhelmina Wright
- 0:19-cv-02384
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Nur v. Olmsted County, Judge Wright adopted recommendations partly granting and partly denying summary judgment, leaving deliberate-indifference claims against two defendants.
Kaiser Faisal Nur; defendants Stella Essien and Elizabeth Schneider-Loberg, whose summary-judgment motion was denied as to Nur’s Fourteenth Amendment deliberate-indifference claims; MEnD Correctional Care, PLLC, whose motion was granted in all other respects; and Olmsted County, whose motion for summary judgment was granted.
What happened
In Kaiser Faisal Nur v. Olmsted County, defendants Stella Essien, Elizabeth Schneider-Loberg, MEnD Correctional Care, PLLC, and Olmsted County sought summary judgment. A magistrate judge recommended partly granting and partly denying the motion brought by Essien, Schneider-Loberg, and MEnD, and granting Olmsted County’s motion.
No one objected to the recommendation, so the court checked it for clear error. The court denied the motion as to Nur’s Fourteenth Amendment deliberate-indifference claims against Essien and Schneider-Loberg, but granted the motion in all other respects. The court also granted Olmsted County’s motion for summary judgment.
Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation on September 28, 2021.
The detailed version
- Nur v. Olmsted County · No. 0:19-cv-02384
- Wilhelmina Wright
- Sept. 28, 2021
Background
The court considered an August 26, 2021 report and recommendation from United States Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz. The report addressed summary-judgment motions filed by defendants Stella Essien, Elizabeth Schneider-Loberg, MEnD Correctional Care, PLLC, and Olmsted County.
The report recommended that the court grant in part and deny in part the motion filed by Essien, Schneider-Loberg, and MEnD. It also recommended granting Olmsted County’s motion. The opinion does not provide the underlying facts supporting Nur’s claims.
Court’s Analysis
No timely objections were filed. Because there were no objections, the court reviewed the report and recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake in the magistrate judge’s analysis. The court found no clear error.
Ruling
The court adopted the report and recommendation. It denied Essien, Schneider-Loberg, and MEnD’s motion for summary judgment with respect to Nur’s Fourteenth Amendment deliberate-indifference claims against Essien and Schneider-Loberg. It granted that motion in all other respects. The court also granted Olmsted County’s motion for summary judgment.
The order therefore left Nur’s Fourteenth Amendment deliberate-indifference claims against Essien and Schneider-Loberg unresolved at this stage, while granting summary judgment in the other respects specified by the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.