DAYWITT v. MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES

Case No. 16-cv-2541 (WMW/LIB).

Kenneth Steven Daywitt, and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Minnesota Department of Human Services, Minnesota Sex Offender Program, Emily Johnson Piper, Jannine Hebert, Peter Puffer, Jim Berg, Jerry Fjerkenstad, and Katherine Lockie, in their individual and official capacities, Defendants.

United States District Court, D. Minnesota.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Cause: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Nature of Suit: 560 Civil Detainee: Conditions of Confinement
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Kenneth Steven Daywitt, and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Minnesota Department of Human Services, Defendant, represented by Aaron Winter .

Minnesota Sex Offender Program, Defendant, represented by Aaron Winter .

Emily Johnson Piper, Defendant, represented by Aaron Winter .

Jannine Hebert, Defendant, represented by Aaron Winter .

Peter Puffer, Defendant, represented by Aaron Winter .

Jim Berg, Defendant, represented by Aaron Winter .

Jerry Fjerkenstad, Defendant, represented by Aaron Winter .

Katherine Lockie, Defendant, represented by Aaron Winter


ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

WILHELMINA M. WRIGHT, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on the June 6, 2017 Report and Recommendation (R&R) of United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois. (Dkt. 38.) No objections to the R&R were filed. In the absence of timely objections, the Court reviews an R&R for clear error. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee's note ("When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation."); Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam). Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds no clear error and adopts the R&R.

ORDER

Based on the R&R and all the files, records and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. The June 6, 2017 R&R, (Dkt. 38), is ADOPTED. 2. Defendants' motion to dismiss, (Dkt. 28), is DENIED.

Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases