Dotson v. Proffitt

Filing 5

ORDER ADOPTING 3 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: 1. Plaintiff's Objection (Doc. No. 4) to the Magistrate Judge's October 19, 2011, R & R (Doc. No. 3) is OVERRULED; 2. The Magistrate Judge's R & R (Doc. No. 3) is ADOPTED; 3. Plaintiff's Application for IFP (Doc. No. 2) is DENIED; and 4. This action is DISMISSED (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 10/23/12. (LPH) CC: Dotson. (kt)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Gregory Lord Dotson,

Case No. 11-cv-2734 (SRN/TNL)

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

David Proffitt, Dr.,
Defendant.

Gregory Lord Dotson, pro se, Minnesota Security Hospital, 2100 Sheppard Drive, Unit
200, St. Peter, Minnesota, 56082, Plaintiff.
Dr. David Proffitt, Minnesota Security Hospital, 100 Freeman Drive, St. Peter,
Minnesota, 56082, Defendant.

SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, United States District Judge
This matter is before the undersigned United States District Court Judge for
consideration of Plaintiff Gregory Lord Dotson’s Objection (Doc. No. 4) to United States
Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung’s October 19, 2011, Report and Recommendation (“R &
R”). (Doc. No. 3.) The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissing Plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. §
1983 claim and denying his application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (Id.)
Plaintiff objects to both recommendations. (Doc. No. 4.)
According to statute, the Court must conduct a de novo review of any portion of the
Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to which specific objections are made. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(C); D. Minn. LR 72.2(b). Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s finding
that there is no 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim because the Magistrate Judge did not have an

opportunity to consider his bank account statement, which he included in his Objection.
(Objection, Doc. No. 4, at pp. 1–4.) The courts have held, “[t]o state a claim under § 1983,
a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the
United States, and must show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person
acting under color of state law.” Neighborhood Enters., Inc. v. City of St. Louis, 540
F.3d 882, 885 (8th Cir. 2008) (citing W. v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (U.S. 1988)).
Plaintiff does not allege that Defendant Dr. David Proffitt1 committed any federal
constitutional violations. The bank account statement does not cure Plaintiff’s failure to
state a claim and therefore the Magistrate Judge properly determined Plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 claim should be denied.
Moreover, since Plaintiff failed to state a claim, the Magistrate Judge correctly
determined that Plaintiff’s application to proceed IFP should be denied. Atkinson v.
Bohn, 91 F.3d 1127, 1128 (8th Cir. 1996) (“a district court may dismiss an action filed
[IFP] at any time if the court determines that the action fails to state a claim on which
relief may be granted.”) (citations and quotations omitted). Based on the Court’s de novo
review, Plaintiff’s objections are overruled and the Court adopts the R & R.
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1.

Plaintiff’s Objection (Doc. No. 4) to the Magistrate Judge’s October 19,
2011, R & R (Doc. No. 3) is OVERRULED;

2.

The Magistrate Judge’s R & R (Doc. No. 3) is ADOPTED;

1

Plaintiff did not provide the Court with any information on Defendant Dr. David
Proffitt’s involvement in this action. (Cf. Doc. Nos. 1–4.)
2

3.

Plaintiff’s Application for IFP (Doc. No. 2) is DENIED; and

4.

This action is DISMISSED.

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.

Dated: October 23, 2012

s/Susan Richard Nelson
SUSAN RICHARD NELSON
United States District Judge

3