From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Logsdon v. St. Paul Police Department Central Dist

United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Mar 16, 2010
Civ. No. 09-183 (PAM/RLE) (D. Minn. Mar. 16, 2010)

Summary

construing pro se litigant's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against a police department as being asserted against the relevant city

Summary of this case from Ernst v. Hinchliff

Opinion

Civ. No. 09-183 (PAM/RLE).

March 16, 2010


ORDER


This matter is before the Court on Chief Magistrate Judge Erickson's Report and Recommendation ("R R"). In the R R, Magistrate Judge Erickson recommended that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, or for Summary Judgment be granted. The parties had until March 12, 2010, to file any objections. No objections were filed. Therefore, the Court therefore ADOPTS the R R (Docket No. 27).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, or for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 15) is GRANTED. LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.


Summaries of

Logsdon v. St. Paul Police Department Central Dist

United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Mar 16, 2010
Civ. No. 09-183 (PAM/RLE) (D. Minn. Mar. 16, 2010)

construing pro se litigant's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against a police department as being asserted against the relevant city

Summary of this case from Ernst v. Hinchliff
Case details for

Logsdon v. St. Paul Police Department Central Dist

Case Details

Full title:Shane Logsdon, Plaintiff, v. St. Paul Police Department Central District…

Court:United States District Court, D. Minnesota

Date published: Mar 16, 2010

Citations

Civ. No. 09-183 (PAM/RLE) (D. Minn. Mar. 16, 2010)

Citing Cases

Morris v. New Haven

" Lamborn v. County Commissioners, 97 U.S. 181, 187; Railroad Co. v. Commissioners, 98 id. 541; Little v.…

Ernst v. Hinchliff

However, under the liberal construction afforded pro se complaints, both the Magistrate Judge (R & R at 731)…