govinfo:USCOURTS-mnd-0_26-cv-00713-2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA 
 
Willie B. Brown, Jr., 
 
 Plaintiff, 
 
v. 
 
The City of Minneapolis, Michael A. 
Heyer, Patrick Bryan, Shany, Hennepin 
County, John, Jane Doe, Shala Jacobson, 
Jane Doe, Supervisor’s [sic], The Hennepin 
County Medical Center, 
 
 Defendants. 
Civ. No. 26-713 (PAM/JFD) 
 
 
 
                                                    ORDER 
 
             
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of 
United States Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty dated February 23, 2026.  (Docket No. 6.)  
For the following reasons, the Court adopts the R&R.   
According to statute, the Court must conduct a de novo review of any portion of the 
R&R to which specific objections are made.  28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. 
P. 72(b); D. Minn. L.R. 72.2(b).  Plaintiff Willie B. Brown, Jr. filed a Response to the R&R 
and a Memorandum of Law, which the Court construes as objections to the R&R.  (Docket 
Nos. 7, 8.)  After conducting the required review and for the following reasons, the Court 
adopts the R&R.   
The full background is set forth in the well-reasoned R&R and the Court need not 
revisit it here.  As the R&R thoroughly analyzed, Brown fails to demonstrate that his 
lawsuit is timely.  The Court notes that Brown has waived any objections that were not 
raised before the Magistrate Judge.  See Marshall v. Chater, 75 F.3d 1421, 1426 (10th Cir. 
CASE 0:26-cv-00713-PAM-JFD     Doc. 10     Filed 06/02/26     Page 1 of 3
2 
 
1996) (“Issues raised for the first time in objections to [a] magistrate judge’s report and 
recommendation are deemed waived.”).  Even if not waived, Brown’s arguments fail on 
the merits. 
First, Brown disagrees with the R&R’s conclusion that Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 
477, 486–87 (1994), did not preclude him from seeking relief during the limitations period.  
He contends that the Heck doctrine barred his suit because the limitations period began in 
August 2020, when the Minnesota Court of Appeals issued its decision in State of 
Minnesota v. Brown, No. A19-0409, 2020 WL 4932785, at *1 (Minn. Ct. App. Aug. 24, 
2020).  The R&R explains that Heck did not bar his claims because the state secured 
convictions against Brown despite excluding the search evidence.  (R&R at 5.)  This 
challenge therefore fails. 
Second, Brown contends that Wallace v. Kato , 549 U.S. 384 (2007), supports his 
argument that the limitations period began to run after the Minnesota Court of Appeals 
issued its decision.  Again, Brown is incorrect.  As the R&R explained, “Brown’s cause of 
action accrued when the search occurred, not when the process leading to the search was 
found to be unlawful.”  (Id. at 5 n.1 (citing Wallace, 549 U.S. at  390–91).)  Because 
Brown’s objections are without merit, the lawsuit is untimely and must be dismissed. 
  
CASE 0:26-cv-00713-PAM-JFD     Doc. 10     Filed 06/02/26     Page 2 of 3
3 
 
Accordingly,  IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 
1. The Court ADOPTS the R&R (Docket No. 6); and 
2. This matter is DISMISSED with prejudice. 
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. 
Dated: June 2, 2026 
 
s/ Paul A. Magnuson   
Paul A. Magnuson 
United States District Court Judge 
 
CASE 0:26-cv-00713-PAM-JFD     Doc. 10     Filed 06/02/26     Page 3 of 3

Passage view · GavelSight