Patil v. Minnesota State University Mankato et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting Magistrate Judge's 37 Report and Recommendation; granting Inter Faculty Organization's 5 Motion to Dismis Under Rule 12(b)(6) for Failure to State a Claim; granting Minnesota State University, Mankato's 16 Motion to Dismiss Complaint; denying plaintiff's 19 Motion for Default Judgment as to Minnesota State University, Mankato; granting Inter Faculty Organization's 28 Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(1); granting 28 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge John R. Tunheim on March 27, 2013. (DML)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
SHEKHAR SURESH PATIL,
Civil No. 12-1052 (JRT/JSM)
MINNESOTA STATE UNIVERSITY,
MANKATO; and INTER FACULTY
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT &
Shekhar Suresh Patil, 327 Blue Earth Street, Mankato, MN 56001, pro se.
Gary R. Cunningham, Assistant Attorney General, MINNESOTA
ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE, 445 Minnesota Street, Suite 1100,
St. Paul, MN 55101, for defendant Minnesota State University, Mankato.
Kathryn M. Engdahl and Richard L. Kaspari, METCALF, KASPARI,
ENGDAHL & LAZARUS, P.A., 2356 University Avenue West #230,
St. Paul, MN 55114-1850, for defendant Inter Faculty Organization.
Plaintiff Shekhar Suresh Patil brought this action against his former employer,
Minnesota State University, Mankato (“MSUM”), and the Inter Faculty Organization
(“IFO”), the exclusive bargaining representative for the faculty of the Minnesota State
His complaint is based on the circumstances surrounding his
termination from his position as a probationary, tenure-track faculty member in the
Department of Construction Management in the College of Science, Engineering and
Technology at MSUM. Patil brings claims under numerous federal statutes, as well as
state claims for breach of contract against MSUM and state claims for breach of fiduciary
responsibility, breach of contract, and breach of the duty of fair representation against the
IFO. Patil also seeks to bring claims under the United States Constitution and the
Minnesota Constitution. The IFO filed motions to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) and MSUM filed a motion to dismiss under Rule
12(b)(6). Patil filed a motion for default judgment against MSUM.
On December 10, 2012, United States Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron issued a
detailed, forty-two page Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) addressing these motions
and each of Patil’s claims. (Docket No. 37.) She recommended granting the IFO’s
motions, granting MSUM’s motion, and denying Patil’s motion. Patil has now objected
to the R&R, on largely unclear grounds, and has not directly addressed the thorough
analysis contained within the R&R.
Having conducted a de novo review of those
portions of the R&R to which Patil appears to object, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C),
D. Minn. LR 72.2(b), and having carefully reviewed the submitted materials, the Court
will overrule Patil’s objections and adopt the R&R in its entirety.
The Court will provide a brief description of its understanding of Patil’s
objections. Patil first argues that the concept of a cause of action is vague and that the
rules applied by this Court are arbitrary. He then appears to complain, among other
arguments, that MSUM did not serve an answer to his summons and complaint, that the
IFO blatantly lied to a federal investigator, that he cannot be deprived of his rights under
the Minnesota Constitution based on the judgment of his peers,1 that he is not seeking
damages, and that entities have been vague about the exact date when an employee must
seek the “truthful reason” for his termination.
He also discusses his educational
background and support he has received from various individuals for the positions he has
taken in this action.
As noted, Patil’s complaint alleges a host of federal and state law claims, each of
which the Magistrate Judge addresses separately in the R&R.
however, fail to identify the aspects of the Magistrate Judge’s analysis with which he
disagrees. In such circumstances, the Court finds that Patil failed to identify a basis for
rejecting the R&R of the Magistrate Judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Despite this
failure, the Court has independently reviewed the files, records, and proceedings of this
case which could conceivably be relevant to Patil’s objections and finds his objections
meritless. The Court will therefore overrule Patil’s objections and adopt the R&R.
Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, the
Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objections [Docket No. 38] and ADOPTS the Report
and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge dated December 10, 2012 [Docket No. 37].
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
Defendant Inter Faculty Organization’s Motion to Dismiss Under Rule
12(b)(6) for Failure to State a Claim [Docket No. 5] and Motion to Dismiss Under Rule
As the R&R notes, Patil raised this claim at oral argument but not in his complaint.
(R&R at 17-18.)
12(b)(1) [Docket No. 28] are GRANTED.
Plaintiff’s claims against the IFO are
DISMISSED with prejudice.
Defendant Minnesota State University, Mankato’s Motion to Dismiss
Complaint [Docket No. 16] is GRANTED.
Plaintiff’s claims against MSUM are
DISMISSED with prejudice.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment as to Minnesota State University,
Mankato [Docket No. 19] is DENIED.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
DATED: March 27, 2013
at Minneapolis, Minnesota.
JOHN R. TUNHEIM
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?