Jones v. Saint Paul College

Filing 5

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Denying 2 Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs filed by Monty Jones; Adopting 3 Report and Recommendation. (Written Opinion). Signed by Senior Judge David S. Doty on 7/1/2014. (PJM) cc: Monty Jones. Modified text on 7/1/2014 (lmb).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Civil No. 14-465(DSD/TNL)
Monty Jones,
Plaintiff,
ORDER

v.
Saint Paul College,
Defendant.

This matter is before the court upon the pro se objection by
plaintiff

Monty

Jones

to

the

March

17,

2014,

recommendation of Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung.

report

and

The magistrate

judge recommended summary dismissal based on failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted.

Based on a de novo review

of the file, record and submissions herein, the court overrules the
objection

and

adopts

the

magistrate

judge’s

report

and

recommendation in its entirety.
Jones, who is African-American, filed a claim against Saint
Paul College pursuant to Title IV of the Civil Rights Act,1
alleging that he was denied a need-based scholarship because of his
race.

The magistrate judge reviewed the complaint pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and recommended dismissal for failure to
state a claim because Jones had not alleged facts that plausibly

1

“Title IV of the Civil Rights Act applies to the
desegregation of public schools and public colleges.”
Khan v.
Educational Comm’n for Foreign Med. Graduates, No. 00-1701, 2000 WL
1763671, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 30, 2000).

established wrongful conduct by Saint Paul College. Jones objects.
The court reviews the report and recommendation de novo. 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(c); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); D. Minn. LR 72.2(b).
Jones objects to the determination that the complaint fails to
state a claim.

Although a complaint need not contain detailed

factual allegations, it must “contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on
its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009); Braden
v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 588 F.3d 585, 594 (8th Cir. 2009).
Conclusory statements are not sufficient to state a claim.

See

Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949.
After a de novo review, the court finds that the complaint
offers

only

conclusory

statements,

and

does

not

support

a

reasonable inference that Saint Paul College violated Title IV or
otherwise discriminated against Jones on the basis of race. In his
objection, Jones provides several anecdotal observations relating
to his experience as a student at Saint Paul College.

Among other

deficiencies, however, the complaint does not allege that “Friends
of Saint Paul College” is the same entity as Saint Paul College,
such that a denial of funding by the former can be attributed to
the latter.

Moreover, the portion of the objection based on Saint

Paul College’s denial of work-study employment, without more, is

2

insufficient to raise a right to relief above the speculative
level.

See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).

As a result, dismissal is warranted.2
Accordingly, after a de novo review, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
that:
1.

The objection [ECF No. 4] is overruled;

2.

The report and recommendation [ECF No. 3] is adopted in

its entirety;
3.

The application to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 2]

is denied; and
4.

This action is summarily dismissed.

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated:

July 1, 2014
s/David S. Doty
David S. Doty, Judge
United States District Court

2

Jones also requests “a different judge for this lawsuit or
... [for] the judge to recuse him or herself.” ECF No. 4. Such a
motion fails. In evaluating such a motion, the court considers
whether the judge’s participation would cause an average person,
who knows all of the relevant facts of a case, to question the
judge’s impartiality. 28 U.S.C. § 455(a); see United States v.
Aldridge, 561 F.3d 759, 764 (8th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted).
Jones gives no basis for disqualification other than that
Magistrate Judge’s Leung’s recommendation of summary dismissal
appeared “personal.” ECF No. 4. Such an allegation, without more,
is not sufficient to warrant recusal. See United States v. Dodge,
538 F.2d 770, 782 (8th Cir. 1976).
3