Carlson v. Minnesota Department of Employment & Economic Development

515 F. App'x 638

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Stephen Carlson brought this action asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development, its Commissioner, and the Governor of Minnesota. He now appeals from the district court’s 2 adverse judgment granting defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, denying his motion for injunc-tive relief, and dismissing the case. Having carefully reviewed the record and considered Carlson’s arguments on appeal, we affirm. See Poehl v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 528 F.3d 1093, 1096 (8th Cir. 2008) (de novo review of grant of judgment on the pleadings); Phelps-Roper v. Nixon, 509 F.3d 480, 484 (8th Cir.2007) (denial of motion for preliminary injunction reviewed for abuse of discretion). We agree with the district court that Carlson’s claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment and the Younger abstention doctrine. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 44, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971) (directing federal courts to decline jurisdiction in cases seeking to enjoin ongoing state criminal proceedings); see also, Middlesex Cnty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 435, 102 S.Ct. 2515, 73 L.Ed.2d 116 (1982) (extending Younger to ongoing state civil proceedings).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

2 . The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Jeffrey J. Keyes, Unites States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.