Gbleah v. Minnesota Unemployment Insurance et al

Filing 7

ORDER Adopting the Supplemental Report and Recommendation 5 ; and Denying Plaintiff's application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis 2 . LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. (Written Opinion). Signed by The Hon. Paul A. Magnuson on 05/28/2014. (LLM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Takpor Gbleah,

Civ. No. 14-1170 (PAM/JJK)
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER

Minnesota Unemployment
Insurance, and Madonna
Tower of Rochester,
Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on the supplemental Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Jeffrey J. Keyes dated May 13, 2014. The R&R
recommended that this Court summarily dismiss this action. Plaintiff filed a letter to
Magistrate Judge Keyes, which the Court will construe as an objection to the supplemental
R&R. According to statute, the Court must conduct a de novo review of any portion of the
Magistrate Judge’s opinion to which specific objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); D. Minn. L.R. 72.2(b). Based on that de novo review, the Court adopts
the R&R.
In his objection, Plaintiff claims that contrary to the conclusion of the R&R he is not
trying to sue Minnesota Unemployment Insurance, a state agency with Eleventh Amendment
immunity from suit in federal court.

But his Amended Complaint lists “Minnesota

Unemployment Insurance” as a Defendant in this matter. As the supplemental R&R
concluded, Minnesota Unemployment Insurance is not subject to suit in this Court and must

be dismissed. (Supp. R&R (Docket No. 5) at 1-2.)
Plaintiff also claims that he is merely asking this Court to order Minnesota
Unemployment Insurance and Madonna Tower of Rochester to provide him with a hearing
on his claim that he was wrongly accused of being overpaid. But such a claim, if cognizable
at all, is not a federal claim. To the extent that Plaintiff believes that Defendants’ actions
may have violated his constitutional rights, such a claim cannot succeed against a private
employer.1 (See id. at 3 (discussing “under color of state law” requirement in 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983).)
Magistrate Judge Keyes correctly concluded that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint fails
to state any actionable claim against either of the named Defendants. Accordingly, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

Plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 2)
is DENIED; and

2.

This action is summarily dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: May 28, 2014

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

1

As noted, Minnesota Unemployment Insurance, while presumably a public entity,
is not amenable to suit in federal court.
2