Benson v. Stewart et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Brandon Keith Benson,
Plaintiff,
v.
Ken Stewart, Thane Murphy, Kent
Johanson, Nicki Marvel, Troy Swartout,
Brandon Tatum, and Darien Menten, in
their individual and official capacities,
Defendants.
Civ. No. 22-3059 (JWB/DLM)
ORDER ACCEPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
________________________________________________________________________
Brandon Keith Benson, pro se Plaintiff.
Leonard J. Schweich, Esq., and Mara Sybesma, Esq., Minnesota Attorney General’s
Office, counsel for Defendants.
United States Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko issued a Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) on December 22, 2025, recommending that Defendants’
Motion for Summary Judgment be granted. (Doc. No. 143.) Plaintiff Brandon Keith
Benson filed a timely objection on January 12, 2026. (Doc. No. 144.) For the following
reasons, Benson’s objection is overruled, and the R&R is accepted.
DISCUSSION
A district court reviews the portions of the R&R to which a party objects de novo
and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations
made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Minn. LR 72.2(b)(3). When a
party fails to file specific objections to an R&R or merely repeats its prior arguments, de
CASE 0:22-cv-03059-JWB-DLM Doc. 150 Filed 02/11/26 Page 1 of 4

2
novo review is not required. See Montgomery v. Compass Airlines, LLC, 98 F. Supp. 3d
1012, 1017 (D. Minn. 2015). The portions of an R&R to which no specific objection is
made are reviewed for clear error. Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996).
Because Benson is pro se, his objections receive liberal construction. Erickson v. Pardus,
551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
Benson does not present a sufficiently specific objection to the R&R’s analysis.
Instead, he makes conclusory declarations about the R&R, most of which overstate its
reasoning and conclusions. Benson also makes broad statements about legal standards
relating to the claims and issues in his case, at times combining portions of the summary
judgment and motion to dismiss standards.
To the extent any specific objection can be discerned from construing Benson’s
filing liberally, none presents a reason to reject the R&R. The closest Benson comes to a
specific objection is his assertion that the R&R improperly weighed evidence. That
objection fails for two reasons. First, there is a difference between weighing evidence and
assessing whether there is enough evidence in the record to support a jury verdict and
survive summary judgment. The R&R appropriately conducted only the latter here. And
second, as the R&R correctly states, the issue of whether a use of force shocks the
conscience is a question of law for the court to decide. (See Doc. No. 143 at 8.) Thus, it is
not improper for the R&R to have considered the evidence in analyzing that issue.
Benson’s claims survived dismissal because, at the pleading stage, his allegations
were accepted as true and all reasonable inferences were drawn in his favor. Now at the
summary judgment stage, the R&R specifically reasoned that the record did not include
CASE 0:22-cv-03059-JWB-DLM Doc. 150 Filed 02/11/26 Page 2 of 4

3
enough evidence to support a verdict in Benson’s favor on either constitutional claim.
Benson’s Fourth Amendment claim was only supported by his own testimony that
he had received suspicious activity alerts from his bank, that he believed Defendant
Murphy harbored animus against him, and that he believed Murphy and Stewart worked
closely together. But even assuming his case involves an actionable privacy interest,
Benson produced no actual evidence that Defendants had accessed his records.
Benson’s Fourteenth Amendment claim survived dismissal based on his allegation
that mace was used continuously and after he was already subdued. But the R&R
determined that Benson cites no record evidence supporting that allegation. Instead, the
video and reports of the incident show that pepper spray was deployed intermittently after
Benson became physical and refused to comply with directives—not continuously and
after restraint. Benson’s objection identifies no supporting evidence either.
Plaintiff’s assertions are simply not supported by record evidence linking
Defendants to the alleged conduct. At summary judgment, speculation or subjective
belief cannot create a genuine issue of material fact. The conclusion here rests on
evidentiary insufficiency rather than any assessment of credibility.
Finally, the R&R did not make a qualified immunity ruling. Instead, it did not
proceed further with qualified immunity analysis because it had determined the evidence
did not establish a constitutional violation that could survive summary judgment.
ORDER
Based on the R&R of the Magistrate Judge, and on all the files, records, and
proceedings in this case, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
CASE 0:22-cv-03059-JWB-DLM Doc. 150 Filed 02/11/26 Page 3 of 4

4
1. 	Plaintiff Brandon Keith Benson’s objection to the December 22, 2025
Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 144) is OVERRULED.
2. 	The December 22, 2025 Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 143) is
ACCEPTED.
3. 	Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 119) is
GRANTED.
4. 	The remaining claims in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 10) that
were not previously dismissed on March 19, 2024 (Doc. No. 58) are DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Date: February 11, 2026 	s/ Jerry W. Blackwell
JERRY W. BLACKWELL
United States District Judge
CASE 0:22-cv-03059-JWB-DLM Doc. 150 Filed 02/11/26 Page 4 of 4