1

The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the

District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable

Jeffrey J. Keyes, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-2062

___________

Malik Al Mustafa El-Alamin, also *

known as Eric Britten, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Kurt Radke; Jeffrey Miller; Elizabeth *

Dea; Erick Fleck; Minneapolis * [UNPUBLISHED]

Police Department, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: March 1, 2010 

Filed: March 31, 2010

___________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Malik Al Mustafa El-Alamin appeals the district court’s1

 adverse grant of

summary judgment in his action claiming violations of his constitutional rights and

his rights under several federal and state statutes. He argues that the district court

erred by determining his objections to the magistrate judge’s report were untimely,
-2-

and by not adequately considering his opposition to defendants’ summary judgment

motions. 

We do not decide whether the objections were timely filed because, even

considering the objections, we conclude that the grant of summary judgment was

proper. See Johnson v. Blaukat, 453 F.3d 1108, 1112 (8th Cir. 2006) (this court

reviews de novo grant of summary judgment); Berryhill v. Schriro, 137 F.3d 1073,

1077 (8th Cir. 1998) (this court can affirm district court’s summary judgment decision

on any basis supported by record). As to the claims made only against Kurt Radke,

we conclude based on orders in El-Alamin’s prior criminal case that he was

collaterally estopped from bringing a claim that Radke made false statements in the

affidavit for a search warrant for El-Alamin’s residence. See Olsen v. Mukasey, 541

F.3d 827, 830-31 (8th Cir. 2008) (describing circumstances where collateral estoppel

applies), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 2178 (2009); Munz v. Parr, 972 F.2d 971, 973 (8th

Cir. 1992) (collateral estoppel applies to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 actions alleging Fourth

Amendment violations). Further, El-Alamin did not present evidence that Radke

searched any of his vehicles, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2) (when motion for summary

judgment is properly made and supported, opposing party may not rely merely on

allegations or denials in its own pleadings, but must set out specific facts showing

genuine issue for trial); and we conclude that El-Alamin did not show that Radke

violated his equal protection rights, or his rights under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 or 1985,

see Creason v. City of Washington, 435 F.3d 820, 823 (8th Cir. 2006) (requirements

to state equal protection claim); Daniels v. Dillard’s, Inc., 373 F.3d 885, 887 (8th Cir.

2004) (requirements to establish prima facie § 1981 claim); Jensen v. Henderson, 315

F.3d 854, 862-63 (8th Cir. 2002) (requirements to establish § 1985 claim). The

various federal and state criminal statutes cited by El-Alamin do not provide a private

right of action.
-3-

As to the claims against the individual defendants for loss of personal property,

we conclude that adequate post-deprivation remedies were available to El-Alamin.

See Minn. Stat. § 466.02; Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984).

Finally, we conclude that the Minneapolis Police Department (MPD) is not a

suable entity, see Ketchum v. City of W. Memphis, Ark., 974 F.2d 81, 82 (8th Cir.

1992), and that even liberally construing the claim against MPD as one against the

City of Minneapolis, El-Alamin did not show he suffered an injury caused by an

unconstitutional policy or custom, see Monell v. Dep’t of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658,

690-91 (1978) (plaintiff seeking to impose § 1983 liability on local government body

must show official policy or widespread custom or practice of unconstitutional

conduct that caused deprivation of constitutional rights).

Accordingly, we affirm, and we deny appellees’ motion to strike El-Alamin’s

reply brief. 

______________________________