Iheme v. Smith

Filing 17

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. 1. Plaintiff Michael Collins Iheme's objections (Doc. No. 16 ) to Magistrate Judge Jeffrey J. Keyes's November 5, 2012 Report and Recommendation are OVERRULED. 2. Magistrate Judge Jeffrey J. Keyes& #039;s November 5, 2012 Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 5 ) is ADOPTED. 3. Plaintiff's motion to be excused from paying an initial partial filing fee (Doc. No. 4 ) is GRANTED. 4. Plaintiff's application for leave to proceed in forma p auperis (Doc. No. 2 ) is DENIED. 5. This action is summarily DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). 6. Plaintiff is required to pay the unpaid balance of the Court filing fee, namely the full $350, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). 7. The dismissal of this action is counted as a strike against Plaintiff for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).(Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 5/6/2013. (BJS)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Michael Collins Iheme, Civil No. 12-2269 (DWF/JJK) Plaintiff, v. ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Warden Michelle Smith, Stillwater Prison MN, Defendant. This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Michael Collins Iheme’s (“Plaintiff”) objections (Doc. No. 16) to Magistrate Judge Jeffrey J. Keyes’s November 5, 2013 Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 5) insofar as it recommends that: (1) Plaintiff’s motion to be excused from paying an intial partial filing fee be granted; (2) Plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis be denied; (3) this action be summarily dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1); (4) Plaintiff be required to pay the unpaid balance of the Court filing fee, namely the full $350, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2); and (5) the dismissal of this action be counted as a “strike” against Plaintiff for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The Court has conducted a de novo review of the record, including a review of the arguments and submissions of the parties, 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. Having carefully reviewed the record, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s objections offer no basis for departure from the Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff appears to dispute the dismissal of his claims on the merits pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). The Court finds, as did Magistrate Judge Keyes, that Plaintiff has failed to plead a cognizable civil rights claim because his complaint does not allege sufficient facts, conduct, or personal involvement on the part of Defendant to support his claim of a constitutional violation. See Ellis v. Norris, 179 F.3d 1078, 1079 (8th Cir. 1999). Dismissal of his complaint is therefore proper. 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 Michael Collins Iheme’s objections (Doc. No. [16]) to Magistrate Judge Jeffrey J. Keyes’s November 5, 2012 Report and Recommendation are OVERRULED. 2. Magistrate Judge Jeffrey J. Keyes’s November 5, 2012 Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. [5]) is ADOPTED. 3. Plaintiff’s motion to be excused from paying an initial partial filing fee (Doc. No. [4]) is GRANTED. 4. Plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. [2]) is DENIED. 2 5. This action is summarily DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). 6. Plaintiff is required to pay the unpaid balance of the Court filing fee, namely the full $350, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). 7. The dismissal of this action is counted as a strike against Plaintiff for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. Dated: May 6, 2013 s/Donovan W. Frank DONOVAN W. FRANK United States District Judge 3

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?