Ruach v. Berts et al

Filing 148

Order Adopting the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge 144 ; Denying Plaintiff's Motion for the Defense of Qualified Immunity 44 ; Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 52 ; Granting Defendants' Cross Mot ion for Summary Judgment 78 ; and Dismissing with prejudice Plaintiff's federal claims, and Dismissing without prejudice Plaintiff's state law tort claim. LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. (Written Opinion). Signed by The Hon. Paul A. Magnuson on 08/27/2013. (LLM)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Pouch Ruach, Civil No. 12-1129 (PAM/JSM) Plaintiff, v. ORDER Ashlee Berts, Bruce Julson, Michelle Smith, Jenny Carufel, Greg Lindell, Behrends Scott. A, Margaret Thron, Michael Warner, Shannan Smith, Hadrava Scott A., Oseland Craig, John King, Steve Hammer, Paula Thielen, and Brianna Arnzen, Defendants. This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Janie S. Mayeron, dated August 5, 2013, which recommended that this Court deny Plaintiff’s Motions for the Defense of Qualified Immunity and for Partial Summary Judgment and grant Defendants’ Cross Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff has not objected to the R&R within the time permitted. The Court therefore ADOPTS the R&R (Docket No. 144). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff’s Motion for the Defense of Qualified Immunity (Docket No. 44) is DENIED; 2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Docket No. 52) is DENIED; 3. Defendants’ Cross Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 78) is GRANTED; and 4. Plaintiff’s federal claims are DISMISSED with prejudice and his state law tort claim is DISMISSED without prejudice. LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. Dated: August 27, 2013 s/ Paul A. Magnuson Paul A. Magnuson United States District Court Judge 2

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?