Fargas v. United States of America et al

Filing 52

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting plaintiff's 42 Motion for Waiver of Noncompliance; granting plaintiff's 46 Motion to Submit Exhibits on the Record; adopt Magistrate Judge's 48 Report and Recommendation; granting defendants' 23 Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge John R. Tunheim on September 23, 2013. (DML) cc: Luis Fargas. Modified on 9/23/2013 (lmb).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
LUIS FARGAS,

Civil No. 12-2165 (JRT/JSM)
Plaintiff,

v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS;
WARDEN ANDERSON, FMC Rochester;
LT. MILLER, FMC Rochester; OFFICER
VAVRA, FMC Rochester; and OFFICER
SMITH, FMC Rochester;

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE
MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Defendants.

Luis Fargas, 1275 Cobblers Crossing, Elgin, IL 60120, pro se.
Lonnie F. Bryan, Assistant United States Attorney, UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, 600 United States Courthouse, 300 South
Fourth Street, Minneapolis, MN 55415, for defendants.
Plaintiff Luis Fargas objects to a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) filed
July 22, 2013, by United States Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron. The Magistrate
Judge recommended that this Court grant the motion to dismiss or for summary judgment
made by the United States, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Warden Anderson, Lt. Miller,
Officer Vavra, and Officer Smith (collectively, the “Defendants”) because the statute of
limitations had elapsed on Fargas’ claims. After a careful review, the Court concludes
that Fargas’ claims are time-barred, and the Court will adopt the R&R in its entirety.

24

Fargas’ claims arise out of a fight between Fargas and another inmate, Trini Rivas,
on March 27, 2006 at the Federal Medical Center in Rochester, Minnesota. Fargas
contends that Defendants’ placement of him in a cell with Rivas was cruel and unusual
punishment.

Fargas also claims that Defendants prevented him from seeking and

receiving any administrative remedies and interfered with his attempts to access the
courts. The Magistrate Judge concluded that Fargas’ claims were best characterized as
Eighth Amendment Bivens claims and First Amendment claims. (R&R at 10-11.) The
Magistrate Judge then concluded that Fargas’ claims are barred by the statutes of
limitations. (R&R at 11-13.)
Upon the filing of a Report and Recommendation by a magistrate judge, a party
may “serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and
recommendations.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); accord D. Minn. L.R. 72.2(b)(1). Fargas’
memorandum objecting to the R&R makes no specific objections to the R&R. Indeed,
Fargas notes that the “only mistake” is that the Court “does not know the difference
[between] a fight and [an] assault.” (Pl.’s Obj. to the R&R at 1, Aug. 7, 2013, Docket
No. 49.) The Court has, however, conducted its own careful and independent review of
both the record and the law and finds that there is no error of law or fact in the Magistrate
Judge’s R&R. See Belk v. Purkett, 15 F.3d 803, 815 (8th Cir. 1994) (emphasizing the
need for de novo review by a district court whenever possible, even in the absence of
specific objections).

The R&R correctly characterizes each of Fargas’ claims and

accurately found the state law statute of limitations bars those claims. (See R&R at 1113.)
-2-

To the extent Fargas addresses the Magistrate Judge’s determination that the
statutes of limitations applicable to his claims have elapsed, Fargas contends that
Defendants are being permitted to win on a “technicality” because he is a “person of
color.” (Pl.’s Obj. to the R&R at 3.) But statutes of limitations are not a technicality,
rather their “conclusive effects are designed to promote justice” and prevent claims after
memories have faded and evidence grown stale. Order of R.R. Telegraphers v. Ry.
Express Agency, 321 U.S. 342, 348 (1944). Moreover, Fargas’ claims received the same
careful consideration as every other claim before this Court; the race of the parties before
it has no effect on the Court’s analysis and level of attention.

ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, the
Court OVERRULES Fargas’ objections [Docket No. 49] and ADOPTS the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation dated July 22, 2013 [Docket No. 48]. Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 23]

is GRANTED.
2.

Fargas’ Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice.

3.

Fargas’ Motion for Waiver of Noncompliance [Docket No. 42] is

GRANTED insofar as the Court considered the merits of Fargas’ Memorandum in
Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment [Docket
No. 41].

-3-

4.

Fargas’ Motion to Submit Exhibits on the Record [Docket No. 46] is

GRANTED.

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
DATED: September 23, 2013
at Minneapolis, Minnesota.

____s/
____
JOHN R. TUNHEIM
United States District Judge

-4-