Traylor v. Minnesota Dept of Corrections et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Rayco DelShaune Traylor,
Plaintiff,
v.
Minnesota Dept of Corrections, MNDOC –
sued in its official capacity; Binkley, Lt. –
sued individually; Connors, Captain – sued
individually; Oak Park Heights Corr. Facility,
sued in its official capacity; Witter, Discipline
Staff – sued in their individual capacities;
Klok, Discipline Staff – sued in their
individual capacities; Teresa Kincannon,
Nurse – sued in her individual capacity; Seth
Olive, Employed by DOC – sued in their
individual capacities; Jayee Browne,
Employed by DOC – sued in their individual
capacities; Lucus B Evenson, Employed by
DOC – sued in their individual capacities;
Adam Perry, Employed by DOC – sued in
their individual capacities; Brian Louis,
Employed by DOC – sued in their individual
capacities; Pawelk, AWO and Warden’s Asst.
at Oak Park Heights – sued in her individual
and official capacities; Jamison A Doeden,
sued in her official and individual capacities;
Halvorson, Warden of Oak Park Heights –
sued in her individual and official capacities;
Traci McNamara, Health Services
Administrator – sued in her individual and
official capacities; Milender, Health Services
Practitioner – sued in his individual
capacities; and Kevin Tran, Dentist – sued in
his individual and official capacities,
Defendants.
Civ. No. 24-1275 (JWB/SGE)
ORDER ACCEPTING
REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
CASE 0:24-cv-01275-JWB-SGE Doc. 146 Filed 02/05/26 Page 1 of 5

2
United States Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins issued a Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) on November 24, 2025, recommending summary judgment in
favor of Defendants and dismissal of Plaintiff Rayco DelShaune Traylor’s (“Traylor”)
Complaint. (Doc. No. 143.) On December 8, 2025, Traylor filed a “Response to
‘Defendants’ Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion’” (“Response”) that is
construed as an objection to the R&R. (Doc. No. 144.) For the reasons stated below,
Traylor’s objection is overruled, and the R&R is accepted.
BACKGROUND
Traylor alleges that his constitutional rights were violated by medical and
corrections staff at the Minnesota Correctional Facility at Oak Park Heights. (See Doc.
No. 1.) He asserts that Defendants used excessive force, denied him his due process
rights, were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs, and violated numerous
state laws following a scheduled medical appointment with Defendant Milender on
January 3, 2024. (Id. at 11–12.)
DISCUSSION
I. 	Standard of Review
District courts review de novo the portions of a magistrate judge’s R&R to which
a party properly objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); D. Minn. LR 72.2(b)(3). Objections to
an R&R must “specify the portions of the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation
to which objections are made and provide a basis for those objections.” Mayer v.
Walvatne, No. 07-cv-1958 (JRT/RLE), 2008 WL 4527774, at *2 (D. Minn. Sept. 28,
2008). If no specific objections are made, then the R&R is reviewed for clear error.
CASE 0:24-cv-01275-JWB-SGE Doc. 146 Filed 02/05/26 Page 2 of 5

3
Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996). Documents filed by a pro se
litigant are liberally construed. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
II. 	Analysis
Although the R&R considers Defendants’ summary judgment motions, Traylor’s
Response refers to the denial of a summary judgment motion that he purports to have
filed, despite there being no such motion in the record. (See, e.g., Doc. No. 144 at 1.)
Thus, Traylor’s Response will be liberally construed as an objection to the R&R.
Traylor contends that the available video evidence is “incontrovertible” and
“agrees 100%” with his pleading. (Id.) He claims that staff reports were “narrated
against” him and “don’t parallel the complaint nor the video,” and that he presented
“undisputed facts” that were “simply denied” by the Magistrate Judge in “clear error.”
(Id.)
Although timely filed, Traylor’s objection is overruled. Repeated and generalized
assertions that the record indisputably supports the allegations are insufficient to trigger
de novo review. See, e.g., Williams v. Moore, Civ. No. 22-1629 (WMW/LIB), 2024 WL
35711, at *2 (D. Minn. Jan. 3, 2024). In the absence of specific objections, the R&R will
be reviewed for clear error. Grinder, 73 F.3d at 795.
No clear error exists. The R&R thoroughly addresses video footage, sworn
affidavits, medical records, and prison incident reports describing the incidents, and
concludes that there is no genuine dispute over the alleged claims. (Doc. No. 143 at 2–
10.) It specifically analyzes how the record evidence does not raise genuine fact issues on
the key elements of Traylor’s claims. (See, e.g., id. at 15–16.) Thus, the recommendation
CASE 0:24-cv-01275-JWB-SGE Doc. 146 Filed 02/05/26 Page 3 of 5

4
that summary judgment be granted as to Traylor’s individual capacity claims against
Defendants Browne, Olive, Evenson, Perry, Louis, Binkley, Connors, Halvorson, Klok,
Witter, Pawelk, Doeden, Kincannon, McNamara, Tran, and Milender is accepted.
Traylor does not object to the R&R’s finding that Eleventh Amendment sovereign
immunity bars his § 1983 claims against the Minnesota Department of Corrections and
Oak Park Heights Correctional Facility, and against Defendants Halvorson, Doeden,
McNamara, Pawelk, and Tran in their official capacities. Nor does he challenge the
R&R’s recommendation to dismiss his state law claims. No clear error is found as to the
R&R’s findings regarding these claims.
ORDER
Based on the R&R of the Magistrate Judge, and all the files, records, and
proceedings in this case, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. 	Plaintiff Rayco DelShaune Traylor’s Objection to the November 24, 2025
Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 144) is OVERRULED.
2. 	The November 24, 2025 Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 143) is
ACCEPTED.
3. 	The Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Binkley, Jayee
Browne, Connors, Jamison A Doeden, Lucus B Evenson, Halvorson, Teresa Kincannon,
Klok, Brian Louis, Traci McNamara, Minnesota Dept of Corrections, Oak Park Heights
Corr. Facility, Seth Olive, Pawelk, Adam Perry, Kevin Tran, and Witter (Doc. No. 78) is
GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against them are DISMISSED.
4. 	Defendant Milender’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 49) is
CASE 0:24-cv-01275-JWB-SGE Doc. 146 Filed 02/05/26 Page 4 of 5

5
GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against Milender is DISMISSED.
5. 	Plaintiff’s state law claims against all Defendants are DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Date: February 5, 2026 	s/ Jerry W. Blackwell
JERRY W. BLACKWELL
United States District Judge
CASE 0:24-cv-01275-JWB-SGE Doc. 146 Filed 02/05/26 Page 5 of 5