Campbell v. City of Duluth et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Clifton Scott Campbell, 23 Mesaba Avenue, Duluth, MN 55806, pro se
Plaintiff.
Ashley M. Ramstad, Carlos B. Soto-Quezada, and Stephanie A. Angolkar,
IVERSON REUVERS, 9321 Ensign Avenue South, Bloomington, MN 55438,
for Defendants Officer Kneeland, Officer Lemendger, and Officer Schutte.
Elizabeth Sellers Tabor and Paige Orcutt, CITY OF DULUTH ATTORNEY’S
OFFICE, 411 West First Street, 440 City Hall, Duluth, MN 55802, for
Defendants City of Duluth and Former Chief Tusken.
On October 15, 2025, United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois issued an
Order and Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) ordering that Plaintiff Clifton Scott
Campbell’s Motions to Amend the Complaint (Docket Nos. 28, 32, and 36) be denied and
CLIFTON SCOTT CAMPBELL,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF DULUTH,
OFFICER KNEELAND,
OFFICER LEMENDGER,
OFFICER SCHUTTE,
FORMER CHIEF TUSKEN,
Defendants.
Civil No. 25-1476 (JRT/LIB)
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
CASE 0:25-cv-01476-JRT-LIB Doc. 51 Filed 02/23/26 Page 1 of 5

-2-
recommending that Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss the Complaint (Docket Nos. 7 and
15) be granted in part and denied in part. After the deadline for objections had passed,1
Campbell filed an objection to the R&R, raising arguments about the veracity of the body-
worn and dash-cam footage that had already been presented to and considered by the
Magistrate Judge. (Obj. to R&R, Nov. 21, 2025, Docket No. 46.)
Objections which are not timely and “merely repeat arguments presented to and
considered by a magistrate judge are not entitled to de novo review but rather are
reviewed for clear error.” See, e.g., Montgomery v. Compass Airlines, LLC, 98 F. Supp. 3d
1012, 1017 (D. Minn. 2015) ; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). In the absence of specific objections,
an R&R is reviewed for clear error. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note (“When
no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error
on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”); see also Grinder v.
Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8 th Cir. 1996).
Applying this standard, the Court finds that the R&R is not clearly erroneous. The
Magistrate Judge’s recommendation is fully supported by both the record and applicable
legal principles. Accordingly, the Court will overrule Campbell’s objection, adopt the R&R,
and will grant in part and deny in part Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss the Complaint. To
1 To be timely, objections to the R&R must be filed within 14 days. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2);
D. Minn. LR 72.2(b)(1). 	Campbell’s objections were filed more than three weeks after this
deadline had passed.
CASE 0:25-cv-01476-JRT-LIB Doc. 51 Filed 02/23/26 Page 2 of 5

-3-
the extent Defendants seek dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims, their motions will be granted,
but to the extent Defendants seek dismissal with prejudice, their motions will be denied.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. 	The 	Magistrate 	Judge’s 	Report 	and 	Recommendation 	(Docket 	No. 	[45]) 	is
ADOPTED.
2. 	Plaintiff Clifton Scott Campbell’s Objection to the Report and Recommendation
(Docket No. [46]) is OVERRULED.
3. 	Defendant Kneeland, Defendant Lemendger, and Defendant Schutte’s Motion to
Dismiss (Docket No. [7]) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
a. 	The present action, as alleged against Defendant Kneeland, Defendant
Lemendger, and Defendant Schutte is DISMISSED as follows:
i. 	Plaintiff’s 	excessive 	force 	claim 	asserted 	against 	Defendant
Kneeland––on the basis of Defendant Kneeland having twisted
Plaintiff’s arm too forcefully behind his back––is DISMISSED without
prejudice;
ii. 	Plaintiff’s 	excessive 	force 	claim 	asserted 	against 	Defendant
Kneeland—on the basis of Defendant Kneeland having allegedly
punched Plaintiff in the jaw—is DISMISSED without prejudice;
CASE 0:25-cv-01476-JRT-LIB Doc. 51 Filed 02/23/26 Page 3 of 5

-4-
iii. 	Plaintiff’s 	excessive 	force 	claim 	asserted 	against 	Defendant
Kneeland––on the basis of Defendant Kneeland having pushed
Plaintiff to the ground while Plaintiff resisted arrest––is DISMISSED
without prejudice;
iv. 	Plaintiff’s 	excessive 	force 	claim 	asserted 	against 	Defendant
Kneeland––on the basis of Defendant Kneeland placing his hand and
arm underneath Plaintiff’s chin—is DISMISSED without prejudice;
v. 	Plaintiff’s failure to intervene claim asserted against Defendant
Lemendger and Defendant Schutte is DISMISSED without prejudice;
vi. 	Plaintiff’s state law claim for intentional infliction of emotional
distress 	as 	asserted 	against 	Defendant 	Kneeland, 	Defendant
Lemendger, and Defendant Schutte is DISMISSED without prejudice;
and
vii. 	Plaintiff’s 	state 	law 	claim 	for 	defamation 	as 	asserted 	against
Defendant Schutte is DISMISSED without prejudice.
4. 	The City of Duluth and Defendant Tusken’s Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. [15]) is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
a. 	Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims against the City of Duluth and Defendant Tusken
are DISMISSED as follows:
CASE 0:25-cv-01476-JRT-LIB Doc. 51 Filed 02/23/26 Page 4 of 5

-5-
i. 	Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims under Monell against the City of Duluth are
DISMISSED without prejudice;
ii. 	Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim against Defendant Tusken in his individual and
official capacity is DISMISSED without prejudice;
iii. 	Plaintiff’s state law claim for intentional infliction of emotional
distress as asserted against the City of Duluth and Defendant Tusken
is DISMISSED without prejudice; and
iv. 	Plaintiff’s state law claim for defamation as asserted against the City
of Duluth and Defendant Tusken is DISMISSED without prejudice.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
DATED: February 23, 2026 	_____/s/ John R. Tunheim ____
at Minneapolis, Minnesota. 	JOHN R. TUNHEIM
United States District Judge
CASE 0:25-cv-01476-JRT-LIB Doc. 51 Filed 02/23/26 Page 5 of 5