PATRICK SCHILTZ, District Judge
Plaintiff Paul Knutson, who is a civilly committed detainee in the Minnesota Sex Offender Program, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Knutson alleges that defendants have violated his federal constitutional rights by denying him visitation with his minor daughter and by making all visitors complete an application form.
This matter is before the Court on the parties' objections to the Report and Recommendation ("R R") of Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois. Judge Brisbois recommends granting defendants' motion to dismiss in part and denying it in part. The Court has conducted a de novo review. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). Based on that review, the Court adopts the R R, with two minor changes.
First, the Court agrees with Judge Brisbois that Knutson has not pleaded sufficient facts to state a claim against either defendant Cal Ludeman or defendant Janine Hebert. In his objection, however, Knutson provides additional details about his interactions with Hebert. If Knutson were to amend his complaint to include these additional details, Knutson might be able to state a claim against Hebert. The Court will therefore dismiss his claim against Hebert without prejudice in order to give Knutson the opportunity to seek leave to amend his complaint. The Court notes, however, that if Knutson is granted leave to amend his complaint to state a claim against Hebert, Knutson will have to ensure that Hebert is properly served with the amended complaint.
Second, the Court also agrees with Judge Brisbois that Knutson lacks standing to challenge the policy requiring visitors to complete an application form. Because Knutson's claim regarding the application forms is being dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, the Court will dismiss that claim without prejudice. See City of Kan. City, Mo. v. Yarco Co., 625 F.3d 1038, 1040 (8th Cir. 2010) (holding that no subject-matter jurisdiction existed because the plaintiff lacked Article III standing); Romero v. Pinnacle Equities, LLC, 283 Fed. Appx. 429, 431 (8th Cir. 2008) (modifying dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction to be without prejudice).
ORDER
Based on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, the Court OVERRULES the parties' objections [Docket Nos. 26, 28] and ADOPTS the R R [Docket No. 25], with the changes noted above. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. Defendants' motion to dismiss [Docket No. 8] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
2. Defendants' motion is GRANTED as follows:
a. To the extent that plaintiff is seeking money damages from any defendant in his or her official capacity, his claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
b. Plaintiff's claims against defendant Cal Ludeman are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE AND ON THE MERITS.
c. Plaintiff's claims against defendant Janine Hebert are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
d. Plaintiff's claims pertaining to the "visiting application form" policy are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
e. Plaintiff's equal-protection claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE AND ON THE MERITS.
3. Defendants' motion is DENIED in all other respects.
Dated: March 1, 2011