Judish v. Peterson et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
GRANT ANTHONY JUDISH,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, BRETT
LINDEMAN, DAN PETERSON,
MARK GUSTAD, ROB JOHNSTON,
CHRISTOPHER WOOD, and
MATTHEW SACKETT,
Defendants.
Case No. 25-cv-1302 (LMP/DJF)
ORDER ADOPTING
REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff 	Grant Anthony 	Judish 	initiated 	this 	lawsuit 	asserting 	claims 	under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Minnesota law relating to the alleged mishandling of his personal
property in connection with his arrest in April 2021. 	See generally ECF No. 1. 	Judish
initially brought claims against the City of Eden Prairie (“City”) and various Eden Prairie
Police Department officials1 (collectively, “Eden Prairie Defendants”), Hennepin County
and various Hennepin County institutions and officials, and the Minnesota Board of Peace
Officer Standards and Training. See id. at 1. After two previous orders of dismissal, only
the claims against the Eden Prairie Defendants remain. ECF Nos. 23, 42.
1 	Specifically, the Eden Prairie Police Department officials against whom Judish
raises claims are Defendants Brett Lindeman, Dan Peterson, Mark Gustad, Rob Johnston,
Christopher Wood, and Matthew Sackett, individually and in their official capacities. ECF
No. 1 at 1.
CASE 0:25-cv-01302-LMP-DJF Doc. 59 Filed 02/04/26 Page 1 of 3

2
Judish alleges that the Eden Prairie Defendants violated his rights under the Fourth,
Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and various
Minnesota criminal statutes. On August 25, 2025, the Eden Prairie Defendants moved to
dismiss: (1) the Eight Amendment claim against Defendant Dan Peterson; (2) the Fourth
and Fourteenth Amendment claims against Defendants Peterson and Mark Gustad in their
official capacities; (3) all claims against the City and Defendants Brett Lindeman, Rob
Johnston, Christopher Wood, and Matthew Sacket; and (4) all Minnesota statutory claims
against all Eden Prairie Defendants. See ECF No. 31; ECF No. 33 at 14. The Eden Prairie
Defendants did not request dismissal of Judish’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims
against Defendants Peterson and Gustad. See ECF No. 33 at 14.
On November 24, 2025, United States Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster issued a
Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), concluding that the Eden Prairie Defendants’
motion should be granted. See generally ECF No. 56. No party has filed objections to the
R&R, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2), so the Court reviews it for clear error, see Grinder v.
Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam). 	Having completed that review,
the Court finds no error and adopts the R&R in full.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and on all the files, records, and proceedings in this matter,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. 	The R&R (ECF No. 56) is ADOPTED;
2. 	Defendants’ Motion for Partial Dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF
No. 31) is GRANTED;
CASE 0:25-cv-01302-LMP-DJF Doc. 59 Filed 02/04/26 Page 2 of 3

3
3. 	All claims against Defendants City of Eden Prairie, Brett Lindeman, Rob
Johnston, Christopher Wood, and Matthew Sackett are DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE;
4. 	All claims against Defendants Mark Gustad and Dan Peterson in their official
capacities are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;
5. 	The 	Eighth 	Amendment 	claim 	against 	Defendant 	Dan 	Peterson 	is
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and
6. 	All claims arising 	under Minnesota 	state 	criminal 	statutes 	against all
Defendants are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.2
Dated: February 4, 2026 	s/Laura M. Provinzino
Laura M. Provinzino
United States District Judge
2 	As noted above, Defendants did not request dismissal of Judish’s Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendment claims against Defendants Dan Peterson and Mark Gustad in their
individual capacities, so those claims remain and may proceed.
CASE 0:25-cv-01302-LMP-DJF Doc. 59 Filed 02/04/26 Page 3 of 3