Johnson v. Sullivan

Background

The order concerns Paul Edward Johnson’s claims against Ryan Sullivan, the State of Minnesota, and Ellison. The opinion does not provide the factual background or identify the legal theories underlying those claims.

Report and Recommendation

United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois issued a Report and Recommendation dated November 29, 2023. No objections were filed within the allowed period. Because there were no objections, the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error rather than conducting a fresh review of disputed issues. The court found no error, clear or otherwise, and adopted the recommendation in full.

Rulings

The court ordered the following:

1. Johnson’s official-capacity claims against Defendant Ryan Sullivan were dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim. This means the court concluded that the claims, as pleaded, did not adequately state a legal claim and did not bar refiling under the order’s stated disposition.

2. Johnson’s claims against the State of Minnesota, regardless of capacity, were dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. The court concluded that it lacked authority to hear those claims.

3. Johnson’s official-capacity claims against Defendant Ellison were dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

4. Johnson’s individual-capacity claims against Defendant Ellison were dismissed without prejudice as frivolous.

Effect of the Order

The order disposed of each category of claim listed in its four directives, but it did so on pleading, jurisdictional, and frivolousness grounds rather than by deciding the underlying merits. The order adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation in full.