From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hill v. Holinka

United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Feb 27, 2008
Civil No. 06-4720 (PJS/JJG) (D. Minn. Feb. 27, 2008)

Summary

distinguishing official-capacity presumption in claims against a state and claims against a federal official under Bivens

Summary of this case from Carlson v. U.S. Dep't of Educ.

Opinion

Civil No. 06-4720 (PJS/JJG).

February 27, 2008


ORDER


This matter is before the undersigned upon the report and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. No objections have been filed to that report and recommendation in the time period permitted. Based on the report and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and being advised of all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The defendants' motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, for summary judgment (Doc. No. 12) is GRANTED.
2. All claims in this matter are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.


Summaries of

Hill v. Holinka

United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Feb 27, 2008
Civil No. 06-4720 (PJS/JJG) (D. Minn. Feb. 27, 2008)

distinguishing official-capacity presumption in claims against a state and claims against a federal official under Bivens

Summary of this case from Carlson v. U.S. Dep't of Educ.
Case details for

Hill v. Holinka

Case Details

Full title:Tyrone B. Hill, Plaintiff, v. Carol Holinka, Karen Peterson, Defendants

Court:United States District Court, D. Minnesota

Date published: Feb 27, 2008

Citations

Civil No. 06-4720 (PJS/JJG) (D. Minn. Feb. 27, 2008)

Citing Cases

Wattleton v. Hodge

In his objections, he argues that because a Bivens claim can only involve the personal liability of a…

Roth v. Larson

If defendants' argument that plaintiff did not exhaust his remedies was examined under the standard for a…