Bryant v. Department of the Army

Filing 20

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. 1. Plaintiff Nathan Andrew Bryant's objections (Doc. No. 10 ) to Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau's April 29, 2011 Report and Recommendation are DENIED. 2. Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau's April 29, 2011 Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 5 ), is ADOPTED. 3. Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2 ) is DENIED.4. Plaintiff's Motion to File in Conjunction with United States District Court -District of Min nesota Case Nathan Andrew Bryant, M.S.Ed. v. National Security Agency(NSA), Case Number: 10-cv-4788 (Doc. No. 3 ) is DENIED. 5. This action is summarily DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 6. Plaintiff's Motion for the Supplement of the Record (Doc. No. 13 ) is DENIED AS MOOT. 7. Plaintiff's Motion for Court's Recognition of Viable Claim for Relief (Doc. No. 17 ) is DENIED AS MOOT.(Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 7/14/2011. (BJS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Nathan Andrew Bryant,

Civil No. 11-1069 (DWF/SER)

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION

Department of the Army (DOA),
Defendant.

Nathan Andrew Bryant, Pro Se, Plaintiff.

This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Nathan Andrew Bryant’s
(“Plaintiff”) objections to Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau’s April 29, 2011 Report and
Recommendation insofar as it recommends that: (1) Plaintiff’s application to proceed
in forma pauperis be denied; (2) Plaintiff’s Motion to File in Conjunction with United
States District Court - District of Minnesota Case Nathan Andrew Bryant, M.S.Ed. v.
National Security Agency (NSA), Case Number: 10-cv-4788 be denied; and (3) this
action be summarily dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).1

1

After the Report and Recommendation was filed, Plaintiff filed two
additional motions: a “Motion for the Supplement of the Record,” and a “Motion for
Court’s Recognition of Viable Claim for Relief.” (Doc. Nos. 13 & 17.) Because the
Court adopts the Report and Recommendation and dismisses the case, these subsequent
motions are denied as moot. The Court has nevertheless reviewed these motions and the
accompanying submissions and concludes that the additional submissions fail to remedy
the Complaint's deficiencies as set forth in the Report and Recommendation.

The Court has conducted a de novo review of the record, including a review of the
arguments and submissions of counsel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local
Rule 72.2(b). The factual background for the above-entitled matter is clearly and
precisely set forth in the Report and Recommendation and is incorporated by reference
for purposes of Plaintiff’s objections.
Based upon the de novo review of the record and all of the arguments and
submissions of the parties and the Court being otherwise duly advised in the premises, the
Court hereby enters the following:
ORDER
1.

Plaintiff Nathan Andrew Bryant’s objections (Doc. No. [10]) to Magistrate

Judge Steven E. Rau’s April 29, 2011 Report and Recommendation are DENIED.
2.

Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau’s April 29, 2011 Report and

Recommendation (Doc. No. [5]), is ADOPTED.
3.

Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. [2]) is

DENIED.
4.

Plaintiff’s Motion to File in Conjunction with United States District Court -

District of Minnesota Case Nathan Andrew Bryant, M.S.Ed. v. National Security Agency
(NSA), Case Number: 10-cv-4788 (Doc. No. [3]) is DENIED.

2

5.

This action is summarily DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
6.

Plaintiff’s Motion for the Supplement of the Record (Doc. No. [13]) is

DENIED AS MOOT.
7.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Court’s Recognition of Viable Claim for Relief (Doc.

No. [17]) is DENIED AS MOOT.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: July 14, 2011

s/Donovan W. Frank
DONOVAN W. FRANK
United States District Judge

3