Jabbar v. Contengecy Work Force et al

Filing 43

Memorandum and Order Adopting the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge 34 ; and Granting Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 19 . The Complaint 1 is Dismissed with Prejudice. LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. (Written Opinion). Signed by The Hon. Paul A. Magnuson on 04/01/2013. (LLM) CC: Abdul Jabbar on 4/1/2013 (MMP).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Abdul Jabbar,

Civ. No. 12-2460 (PAM/AJB)
Plaintiff,

v.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Contengency Work Force,1 Aaron
Pouncy, Carmen Colombo, Dick
Voss, and Dan Gryzinski,
Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Chief
Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan dated March 4, 2013. In the R&R, Chief Magistrate
Judge Boylan recommends granting Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings and
dismissing the Complaint with prejudice.
The Court must conduct a de novo review of all portions of a Magistrate Judge’s R&R
to which specific objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); D.
Minn. L. R. 72.2(b). Plaintiff filed timely objections to the R&R. For the reasons that
follow, the Court ADOPTS the findings and conclusions in the R&R (Docket No. 34).
The gist of Plaintiff’s claims is that Defendants, who are contract food-service
providers for the Minnesota Department of Corrections, failed in 2011 to provide Muslim
inmates with food that complies with the dietary restrictions of Islam. The claims are
brought under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000
(“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1.
1

The actual name of this Defendant is Contingency Work Force Solutions, Inc.

The R&R determined that Plaintiff had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies
with regard to his RLUIPA claims. In his Objections, Plaintiff repeats his arguments
regarding the merits of his claims, and contends that he attempted to exhaust the
administrative remedies but his initial entreaties were ignored. He does not explain why he
did not attempt to bring Defendants’ failure to respond to his complaints to the attention of
prison officials.
As the R&R explained, the exhaustion requirement is not merely a procedural hurdle,
but rather is a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit in federal court. In other words, this Court
cannot entertain a prisoner’s lawsuit unless the claims in that lawsuit have been fully
exhausted under the prison’s administrative procedure requirements. Plaintiff does not
dispute that he did not fully comply with Minnesota DOC’s grievance appeal procedure, but
contends that his initial complaint letters, to which there was no response, should suffice in
this instance. Unfortunately for Plaintiff, that is not the law.
Plaintiff did not attempt to take an appeal, either from Defendants’ response to his
complaints or from their failure to respond to his complaints. His failure to comply with the
DOC’s full grievance policy means his claims here are not cognizable in federal court.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

The R&R (Docket No. 34) is ADOPTED;

2.

Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Docket No. 19) is
GRANTED; and

3.

The Complaint (Docket No. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice.

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.

Dated: April 1, 2013

s/ Paul A. Magnuson
Paul A. Magnuson
United States District Court Judge