Thomas v. Bzoskie et al
| DeSean Lamont Thomas |
| James Bzoskie, Verby, Heart, John Doe and Dakota County Minnesota |
| 0:2016cv03805 |
| November 2, 2016 |
| US District Court for the District of Minnesota |
| DMN Office |
| Dakota |
| Katherine M. Menendez |
| John R. Tunheim |
| Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
49
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; Plaintiff's Objection to the R&R 43 is OVERRULED and the Magistrate Judge's R&R 42 is ADOPTED in full. Thomas's constitutional claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and the Co urt declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Plaintiff's Motion for Voluntary Dismissal 35 is DENIED. Plaintiff's Motion for Revival, Reconsideration, and to Stay Costs 41 is DENIED. Plaintiff's Motion to Stay 46 is DENIED as moot. Plaintiff's action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. (Written Opinion) Signed by Chief Judge John R. Tunheim on 12/06/2017. (JMK)
|
|
Filing
31
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING Report and Recommendation 24 , overruling 26 Plaintiff's Objections, and denying 4 Plaintiff's Motion to Remand to State Court (Written Opinion). Signed by Chief Judge John R. Tunheim on 08/16/2017. (JMK) cc: DeSean Lamont Thomas. Modified on 8/16/2017 (lmb).
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Minnesota District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
