Braun v. State of Minnesota
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:22-cv-00528
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Braun v. State of Minnesota, Judge Tostrud accepted the recommendation, granted dismissal in part, and denied it in part.
Nathan Christopher Braun and the defendants named in the case. Braun’s claims for declaratory and injunctive relief and his individual-capacity claims against Victor Wanchena, CPD Huppert, and L. McCoy were dismissed with prejudice; his official-capacity claims for compensatory and punitive damages were not dismissed by this order.
What happened
In Braun v. State of Minnesota, Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster issued a recommendation on the defendants’ motion to dismiss. No party objected, so the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error.
The court accepted the recommendation and granted the motion to dismiss in part. It dismissed with prejudice Braun’s claims for declaratory and injunctive relief and his individual-capacity claims against Wanchena, Huppert, and McCoy.
The court also denied the motion to dismiss in part as to Braun’s official-capacity claims for compensatory and punitive damages. Judge Eric C. Tostrud signed the order.
The detailed version
- Braun v. State of Minnesota · No. 0:22-cv-00528
- Eric Tostrud
- Jan. 25, 2023
Background
Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster issued a Report and Recommendation on December 27, 2022. No party objected. Under the applicable procedure, the district court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error.
Rulings
Judge Eric C. Tostrud found no clear error and accepted the Report and Recommendation. The court granted in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
The court dismissed with prejudice Braun’s claims for declaratory and injunctive relief. It also dismissed with prejudice Braun’s individual-capacity claims against Defendants Victor Wanchena, CPD Huppert, and L. McCoy.
The court denied in part the motion to dismiss as to Braun’s official-capacity claims for compensatory and punitive damages.
Effect of the Order
The order ended the specified claims that were dismissed with prejudice. The order denied dismissal of the identified official-capacity damages claims. The opinion does not state the legal grounds for each portion of the motion or provide further details about the claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.