Rickmyer v. Browne et al

Filing 210

ORDER ADOPTING 197 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: 1. The Magistrate Judge's denial of Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint [Doc. No. 171] is AFFIRMED; 2. Defendant McDonald's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 155] is GRANTED; and 3. All claims against Defendant McDonald in this case are DISMISSED with prejudice (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 4/18/14. (LPH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Peter Rickmyer,

Case No. 13-cv-559 (SRN/LIB)

Plaintiff,
ORDER
v.
Michael (Kip) Browne; Megan
Goodmundson; Dan Rother; Robert
Hodson; John George Hubbard, II; Dave
Haddy; Ann McCandless; David Schooler;
John Willard Hoff; William McDonald;
Jordan Area Community Council, Inc.,
Defendants.

Peter Rickmyer, Pro Se Plaintiff.
Julie K. Bowman, Hennepin County Attorney’s Office, 300 South Sixth Street, Suite A2000, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487, for Defendant William McDonald.

SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, United States District Judge
I.

INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Objections [Doc. No. 200] to United

States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois’s February 28, 2014, Order and Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) [Doc. No. 197]. For the reasons set forth below, the Court
overrules Plaintiff’s Objections and adopts the Order and R&R in its entirety.

1

II.

BACKGROUND
The Magistrate Judge’s Order and R&R documents the factual and procedural

background of this case, and the Court incorporates it by reference. Previously, this
Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims against all of the Defendants except for William
McDonald. (Feb. 5, 2014, Mem. Op. and Order at 22 [Doc. No. 196].)
In his Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff asserted two claims against
McDonald: (1) that McDonald conspired and retaliated against Plaintiff, infringing his
rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, in violation of
42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and 42 U.S.C. §
12203; and (2) “intentional interference with contract”—that McDonald purportedly
interfered with Plaintiff’s “contract” with the Minnesota Department of Corrections.
(Second Am. Compl. at 22-24 [Doc. No. 7].)
On May 30, 2013, McDonald filed and served his Answer [Doc. No. 11]. On
November 22, 2013, McDonald moved for summary judgment [Doc. No. 155]. On
December 2, 2013, Plaintiff opposed the summary judgment motion [Doc. No. 166].
On December 13, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend Complaint [Doc. No.
171]. On December 20, 2013, McDonald opposed this motion [Doc. No. 177]. The
Magistrate Judge subsequently heard oral argument on Defendant’s summary judgment
motion and Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Complaint. (Jan. 14, 2014 Min. Entry [Doc.
No. 190].) On February 19, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued the instant Order and
R&R, denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint, and recommending that (1)
McDonald’s Motion for Summary Judgment be granted and (2) all claims against
2

McDonald be dismissed with prejudice. (Feb. 19, 2014, Order and R&R at 25-26 [Doc.
No. 197].)
On February 28, 2014, Plaintiff filed his objections [Doc. No. 200] to the Order
and R&R. On March 7, 2014, McDonald opposed Plaintiff’s objections [Doc. No. 201].
On March 14, 2014, Plaintiff opposed McDonald’s opposition to his objections [Doc. No.
202].
III.

DISCUSSION
A.

Standard of Review

A party “may file and serve specific written objections to a magistrate judge’s
proposed findings and recommendations.” D.Minn. LR 72.2(b)(1). The district court will
review de novo those portions of the R&R to which an objection is made, and it “may
accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the
magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3); D.Minn. LR
72.2(b)(3). Ordinarily, the district judge relies on the record of proceedings before the
magistrate judge. D.Minn. LR 72.2(b)(3).
In ruling on an objection from a non-dispositive matter decided by a magistrate
judge, the district court must affirm an order by a magistrate judge unless it is “clearly
erroneous or contrary to law.” D.Minn. LR 72.2(a)(3). This standard is extremely
deferential. Reko v. Creative Promotions, Inc., 70 F. Supp. 2d 1005, 1007 (D. Minn. 1999).
A finding is “clearly erroneous” when although there is evidence to support it, “the
reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a
mistake has been committed.” Chakales v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 79 F.3d 726, 728
3

(8th Cir. 1996).
B.

Objections

In his Objections, Plaintiff again attempts to establish a conspiracy between
McDonald and other defendants who have been dismissed. (Objections [Doc. No. 200].)
No new facts or arguments are presented to challenge the Magistrate Judge’s denial of
Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint, or the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that
McDonald’s Motion for Summary Judgment be granted and that all claims against
McDonald be dismissed with prejudice. (Id.)
The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s reasoning and does not see any basis
to conclude otherwise based on Plaintiff’s Objections. Thus, the Court affirms the
Magistrate Judge’s denial of Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint. Additionally, it
grants McDonald’s Motion for Summary Judgment and dismisses all claims against
McDonald in this case with prejudice.
IV.

ORDER
The Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s Objections [Doc. No. 200] and ADOPTS the

Magistrate Judge’s February 19, 2014, Order and R&R [Doc. No. 197]. Accordingly, IT
IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The Magistrate Judge’s denial of Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint [Doc.
No. 171] is AFFIRMED;
2. Defendant McDonald’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 155] is
GRANTED; and
3. All claims against Defendant McDonald in this case are DISMISSED with
prejudice.
4

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated:

April 18, 2014

s/ Susan Richard Nelson
SUSAN RICHARD NELSON
United States District Court Judge

5