Soto v. Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension et al

Filing 111

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. 1. Plaintiff Benjamin Mario Soto's objections (Doc. Nos. 91 , 95 , 96 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 107 , 108 ) to Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau's February 13, 2014 Report and Recommendation are OVER RULED. 2. Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau's February 13, 2014 Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 90 ) is ADOPTED. 3. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 72 ) is GRANTED. 4. This case is DISMISSED. 5. Plaintiff's Motions to Reques t Proceeding With Only One Filing to the U.S. District Court District of Minnesota (Doc. Nos. 92 , 97 ) are DENIED AS MOOT. 6. Plaintiffs Counsel's Motion to Withdraw (Doc. No. 93 ) is DENIED AS MOOT. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 4/15/2014. (BJS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Benjamin Mario Soto,

Civil No. 13-640 (DWF/SER)

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION

John Defendants 1–5, each individually
and in their official capacities as officials and
employees of the Minnesota Bureau of
Criminal Apprehension,
Defendants.

This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Benjamin Mario Soto’s (“Plaintiff”)
objections (Doc. Nos. 91, 95, 96, 102, 103, 104, 107, 108) to Magistrate Judge Steven E.
Rau’s February 13, 2014 Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 90). Defendants
responded to Plaintiff’s objections on March 13, 2014. (Doc. No. 106.)
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 generally object to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation
that this case be dismissed. (See generally Doc. Nos. 91, 95, 96, 102, 103, 104, 107,

108.) The undersigned agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s determination regarding
Eleventh Amendment immunity and finding that Plaintiff cannot establish a legitimate
claim of entitlement to employment with the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal
Apprehension in which he has a protected property interest. See, e.g., Packett v.
Stenberg, 969 F.2d 721, 724-35 (8th Cir. 1992). The Court has also reviewed Plaintiff’s
Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 77.) Even assuming Plaintiff had properly filed
(and leave had been granted to file) his Second Amended Complaint, the Complaint
would not survive a motion to dismiss for the reasons stated in the Report and
Recommendation. (See Doc. No. 90 at 22-24.) The Court thus concludes, as did
Magistrate Judge Rau, that Plaintiff has failed to assert a plausible Section 1983 claim
against Defendants. Consequently, the Court grants Defendants’ motion and dismisses
this matter.
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 Benjamin Mario Soto’s objections (Doc. Nos. [91], [95], [96],

[102], [103], [104], [107], [108]) to Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau’s February 13, 2014
Report and Recommendation are OVERRULED.
2.

Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau’s February 13, 2014 Report and

Recommendation (Doc. No. [90]) is ADOPTED.
3.

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. [72]) is GRANTED.
2

4.

This case is DISMISSED.

5.

Plaintiff’s Motions to Request Proceeding With Only One Filing to the U.S.

District Court District of Minnesota (Doc. Nos. [92], [97]) are DENIED AS MOOT.
6.

Plaintiff’s Counsel’s Motion to Withdraw (Doc. No. [93]) is DENIED AS

MOOT.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.

Dated: April 15, 2014

s/Donovan W. Frank
DONOVAN W. FRANK
United States District Judge

3