Nelson v. Dakota County
Damien Lashaun Nelson v. Dakota County; Dakota County Sheriff’s Office, Minnesota; Dakota County Employees John Doe 1–3 and Jane Doe 1–3, whose identities are presently unknown to Plaintiff, in their individual and official capacities; Dakota County Correctional Officers John Doe 1–3 and Jane Doe 1–3; MEnd Correctional Care PLLC; and MEnd Correctional Care PLLC Employees John Doe 1–3 and Jane Doe 1–3, whose identities are presently unknown to Plaintiff, in their individual and official capacities.
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:24-cv-04662
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Nelson v. Dakota County, Judge Tostrud accepted a magistrate judge's recommendation and dismissed without prejudice the complaint filed by Damien Lashaun Nelson against Dakota County, its sheriff's office, unnamed county employees, and a medical care contractor, granting in part and denying in part the defendants' motion to dismiss.
Damien Lashaun Nelson, a pro se incarcerated plaintiff whose complaint was dismissed without prejudice, and the named defendants including Dakota County, the Dakota County Sheriff's Office, and MEnd Correctional Care PLLC.
What happened
In Nelson v. Dakota County, Damien Lashaun Nelson, a plaintiff currently incarcerated at MCF Rush City in Minnesota, sued Dakota County, the Dakota County Sheriff's Office, various unnamed county employees and correctional officers, and a company called MEnd Correctional Care PLLC along with its unnamed employees. His complaint raised claims against these defendants in both their individual and official capacities. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case.
Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois issued a Report and Recommendation on October 8, 2025, recommending how the motion to dismiss should be resolved. The Report and Recommendation was mailed to Mr. Nelson at his prison address. Mr. Nelson sent a letter to the court dated November 20, 2025, but did not object to the Report and Recommendation in that letter — instead raising concerns about access to a law library and alleged interference by prison officials with his ability to pursue the case. Because no party objected to the Report and Recommendation, the court reviewed it only for clear error, which is a more limited standard of review than if objections had been filed.
Judge Tostrud, finding no clear error in the Report and Recommendation, accepted it (with modifications that are not detailed in this order) and ruled on the defendants' motion to dismiss. The motion was granted in part and denied in part, and Mr. Nelson's complaint was dismissed without prejudice — meaning he is not permanently barred from refiling, though the opinion does not explain the specific grounds for dismissal or what claims, if any, survived.
The detailed version
Case: Damien Lashaun Nelson v. Dakota County et al., File No. 24-cv-4662 (ECT/LIB), United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. Presiding judge: District Judge Eric C. Tostrud. Magistrate Judge: Leo I. Brisbois.
Background and Parties Plaintiff Damien Lashaun Nelson, proceeding apparently pro se (self-represented) and incarcerated at MCF Rush City, filed a complaint against: Dakota County; the Dakota County Sheriff's Office, Minnesota; Dakota County Employees John Doe 1–3 and Jane Doe 1–3 (in individual and official capacities); Dakota County Correctional Officers John Doe 1–3 and Jane Doe 1–3; MEnd Correctional Care PLLC (a private medical contractor); and MEnd Correctional Care PLLC Employees John Doe 1–3 and Jane Doe 1–3 (in individual and official capacities). The nature of the underlying substantive claims is not described in this order.
Procedural History Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 25). Magistrate Judge Brisbois issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) dated October 8, 2025 (ECF No. 47), recommending resolution of that motion. The R&R was mailed to Mr. Nelson at his MCF Rush City address on October 24, 2025.
Plaintiff's Response to the R&R Mr. Nelson filed a letter dated November 20, 2025 (ECF No. 48). He did not object to the R&R in that letter. Instead, he asserted that he lacked access to a law library and that prison officials were deliberately hindering his ability to prosecute the case. Judge Tostrud characterized these allegations as conclusory, noted they did not address the merits of the case, and observed that Mr. Nelson's ability to file the letter demonstrated he was capable of lodging objections if he chose to do so.
Standard of Review Because no party objected to the R&R, the court reviewed it only for clear error, per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam). This is a more deferential standard than de novo review, which would apply had timely objections been filed.
Ruling Judge Tostrud, finding no clear error, accepted the R&R 'as modified' (the nature of the modification is not explained in this order). The defendants' Motion to Dismiss was GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Mr. Nelson's Complaint was DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE — meaning the dismissal does not operate as a permanent bar to refiling.
What This Order Does Not Say The order does not describe the specific claims alleged in the complaint, the legal bases for dismissal, which parts of the motion were granted versus denied, what modifications were made to the R&R, or whether any claims or defendants survive. The full analysis would be in the R&R (ECF No. 47), which is not reproduced here.
Judgment was ordered entered accordingly. Dated November 25, 2025.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.