govinfo:USCOURTS-mnd-0_25-cv-02790-1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA 
 
Emma Nova Miles, 
   
  Plaintiff, 
       ORDER ON REPORT  
 v.      AND RECOMMENDATION 
       Civil No. 25-2790 ADM/DTS 
Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office, 
et al.    
 
  Defendants. 
______________________________________________________________________________ 
 
Emma Nova Miles, pro se. 
 
Marissa K. Linden, Hennepin County Attorney’s Office, for Defendants. 
______________________________________________________________________________ 
 
I.  INTRODUCTION 
 This matter is before the undersigned United States District Judge for a ruling on Plaintiff 
Emma Nova Miles’s (“Miles”) Objection [Docket No. 114] to Magistrate Judge David T. 
Schultz’s May 7, 2026, Report and Recommendation [Docket No. 33] (“R&R”).  In the R&R, 
Judge Schultz recommends granting Defendant Hennepin Healthcare System’s Motion to 
Dismiss [Docket No. 72] based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  After a de novo review of 
the record, and for the reasons stated below, Miles’s Objections are overruled and the R&R is 
adopted.  
II.  DISCUSSION 
 In reviewing a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the district court “shall 
make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or 
recommendations to which objection is made.”  28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also D. Minn. 
L.R. 72.2(b).  The district judge “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)(C).   
CASE 0:25-cv-02790-ADM-DTS     Doc. 115     Filed 06/03/26     Page 1 of 3
2 
 
 The factual background of this case is thoroughly set forth in the R&R and is 
incorporated by reference.  The R&R recommends dismissal for lack of jurisdiction under the 
Rooker-Feldman doctrine and concludes that, even if jurisdiction exists, the claims fail on the 
merits.   
Miles objects to the R&R’s determination that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies.  She 
argues that Judge Schultz erred in concluding that her complaint attacks the Hennepin County 
court’s commitment order, because her claim is focused on her treatment before the commitment 
order was issued.  For the reasons stated in the R&R, the Court disagrees with Miles’s position.  
The complaint does not identify conduct by Defendant independent of the commitment 
proceedings, which are directly related to her immediately preceding 72-hour hold.  Under these 
circumstances, Miles’s federal claims are a challenge to the state court’s civil commitment 
proceedings and are therefore barred under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.   
The Court is also unpersuaded by Miles’s argument that Judge Schultz erred in relying on 
Hennepin Healthcare records showing the date of the civil commitment order, thus undermining 
the legality of her detention.  The Court has reviewed the documents and is satisfied that the 
medical records are sufficient to establish the timeline offered by Defendant.  The Court also 
agrees with Judge Schultz’s determination that Miles’s federal claims fail on the merits even if 
properly before the Court.     
For these reasons, the Court agrees with Judge Schultz’s conclusion that Miles’s federal 
claims should be dismissed with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  The Court will 
dismiss Miles’s state law claim for false imprisonment without prejudice, however.  
  
CASE 0:25-cv-02790-ADM-DTS     Doc. 115     Filed 06/03/26     Page 2 of 3
3 
 
III.  CONCLUSION 
 Based upon the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS 
HEREBY ORDERED that: 
1. Plaintiff Emma Nova Miles’s Objection [Docket No. 114] to Magistrate Judge 
David T. Schultz’s Report and Recommendation is OVERRULED; 
 
 2. The Report and Recommendation [Docket No. 113] is ADOPTED;  
 
 3. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 72] is GRANTED;  
 
 4. The federal claims (Counts IV, XII, and XIV) are dismissed with prejudice; and  
 
 5. The state law claim (Count XIII) is dismissed without prejudice. 
 
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.  
 
 
       BY THE COURT: 
 
Dated:  June 3, 2026 
       s/Ann D. Montgomery    
       ANN D. MONTGOMERY 
       U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 
CASE 0:25-cv-02790-ADM-DTS     Doc. 115     Filed 06/03/26     Page 3 of 3

Passage view · GavelSight