Fox v. Roy et al

Filing 52

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 51 Report and Recommendation, granting 32 Motion to Dismiss filed by Barry Smith, denying 46 Motion to Alter/Amend/Supplement Pleadings filed by Thomas James Fox, granting 24 Motion to Dismiss filed by Drew Evans, Gary Swanson (Written Opinion). Signed by Senior Judge David S. Doty on 1/24/2017. (DLO)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Civil No. 15-2594(DSD/TNL) Thomas James Fox, Plaintiff v. ORDER Thomas Roy, Commissioner; Penny Malecha, Director; Harold W. Clarke, Director; Agent Drew Evans; Special Agent Gary Swanson; and Investigator Barry Smith, Defendants. Thomas James Fox, #1541090, Wallens Ridge State Prison, P.O. Box 759, Big Stone Gap, VA 24219, plaintiff pro se Kathryn Iverson Landrum, Assistant Attorney General, Minnesota Attorney General’s Office, 445 Minnesota Street, Suite 1100, St. Paul, MN 55101-2128, counsel for defendants Agent Drew Evans and Special Agent Gary Swanson Ryan M. Zipf, League of Minnesota Cities, 145 University Avenue W., St. Paul, MN 55103, counsel for Defendant Investigator Barry Smith This matter is before the court upon the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung dated December 22, 2016. The magistrate judge recommended that the court grant defendants’ motions to dismiss. Petitioner has not filed an objection to the R&R in the time period permitted. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The magistrate judge’s report and recommendation [ECF No. 51] is adopted in its entirety; 2. Defendants Evans’ and Swanson’s motion to dismiss [ECF No. 24] is granted; 3. Defendant Smith’s motion to dismiss [ECF No. 32] is granted; 4. Plaintiff’s motion to amend complaint [ECF No. 46] is denied; and 5. The complaint [ECF No. 1] is dismissed. LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. Dated: January 24, 2017 s/David S. Doty David S. Doty, Judge United States District Court 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?