courts within the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. See, e.g., Roberts v. Source for Public Data, 606 F.Supp.2d 1042, 1046 (W.D.Mo.2008) (dismissing plaintiffs’ claim because, “[gjiven [the DPPA’s] comprehensive remedial scheme, the [cjourt must presume that Congress intended that the enforcement scheme it created in the DPPA would be the exclusive remedy for violations, precluding rfesort to § 1983”); Nelson v. Jesson, No. 13-cv-340 (RHK/JJK), 2013 WL 5888235, at *7 (D.Minn. Nov. 1, 2013) (noting that “the DPPA’s remedial scheme, which is both comprehensive and more restrictive than § 1983, expresses Congress’s intent to preclude other means of enforcement”); see also Kiminski v. Hunt, No. 13-CV-185 (JNE/TNL), 2013 WL 6872425, at *14 (D.Minn. Sept. 20, 2013) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiff urges the Court to follow Collier
holding that a suit against a state official in his or her official capacity is a suit against the state itself and not cognizable under  1983 holding that the dppa precludes a  1983 action because the inability to sue state officials in their official capacity under the dppa is significant especially in light of the statutes overall comprehensive remedial scheme holding that the eleventh amendment protects both states and state officials acting in their official capacity from suits brought pursuant to 42 usc  1983 holding that states and state officials acting in their official capacity are not persons under  1983 holding that state officials may be personally liable for actions taken in their official capacity