Andrews v. Brott
- David Doty
- 0:20-cv-00980
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Andrews v. Brott, Judge Doty dismissed claims against Sherburne County defendants without prejudice, dismissed claims against Allina defendants with prejudice, and denied voluntary dismissal.
Norris Deshon Andrews; the Sherburne County defendants; and the Allina defendants.
What happened
In Andrews v. Brott, the court reviewed a magistrate judge’s recommendation about claims against Sherburne County and Allina defendants. Andrews did not object to the recommendation and instead asked to dismiss the case voluntarily so he could file a new case later.
The court explained that the claims against the Sherburne County defendants could be filed again consistently with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because their dismissal was without prejudice. The claims against the Allina defendants could not be filed again because Andrews did not provide the expert-review affidavit required for medical-malpractice plaintiffs under Minnesota law.
Judge David S. Doty adopted the recommendation in full, granted the Sherburne County defendants’ motion to dismiss, dismissed those claims without prejudice, granted the Allina defendants’ motion to dismiss, dismissed those claims with prejudice, and denied Andrews’s motion for voluntary dismissal.
The detailed version
- Andrews v. Brott · No. 0:20-cv-00980
- David Doty
- May 16, 2022
Background
The court reviewed a report and recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois on March 23, 2022. The recommendation was to dismiss the claims against the Sherburne County defendants without prejudice and the claims against the Allina defendants with prejudice.
The Sherburne County defendants were Sherburne County Jail, Joel Brott, Captain Zerwas, Captain Bloom, Commander Carr, and Brian Frank. The Allina defendants were Allina Health Fridley Clinic, Jaucenita Neft, and Todd Hendrickson.
Andrews received additional time to object to the recommendation but did not object. Instead, he moved to voluntarily dismiss the case with permission to file a new lawsuit later. He said that multiple facility transfers prevented him from adequately preparing his case.
Reasoning
The court stated that the recommended dismissal of the claims against the Sherburne County defendants was without prejudice, meaning Andrews could file a new action against those defendants if he complied with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The court separately upheld dismissal of the claims against the Allina defendants with prejudice. It explained that these claims involved the requirement in Minnesota Statutes section 145.682, subdivision 2, that medical-malpractice plaintiffs provide an affidavit of expert review. The court found that Andrews did not provide the required affidavit and stated that noncompliance required dismissal with prejudice.
Ruling
Judge David S. Doty adopted the report and recommendation in its entirety. The court granted the Sherburne County defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed the claims against them without prejudice. It granted the Allina defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed the claims against them with prejudice. The court denied Andrews’s motion to voluntarily dismiss the case with permission to file another lawsuit in the future.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.