Grimm v. Best Buy Co., Inc.

Filing 90

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. 1. Plaintiff Ivan J. Grimm's objections (Doc. Nos. 74, 75]) to Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer's April 19, 2017 Report and Recommendation are OVERRULED. 2. Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer's Apri l 19, 2017 Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 55 ) is ADOPTED. 3. Defendant Best Buy Co., Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State aClaim or, in the Alternative, for a More Definite Statement (Doc. No. 15 ) isGRANTED as to dismissal and DENIED AS MOOT as to a more definite statement.4. All claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 5. Plaintiff Ivan J. Grimm's Motion to Defer Dispositive Judgment (Doc.No. 29 ) is DENIED. 6. Plaintiff Ivan J. Grimm's Motion to Disclose Author ization of Surveillance(Doc. No. 37 ) is DENIED. 7. Plaintiff Ivan J. Grimm's Motion to Toll EEOC Statute of Limitations (Doc.No. 47 ) is DENIED. 8. Plaintiff Ivan J. Grimm's Motion for Declaration of Mistrial (Doc. No. 83 is DENIED. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 5/30/2017. (BJS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Ivan J. Grimm,

Civil No. 16-1258 (DWF/HB)
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION

Best Buy Co., Inc.,
Defendant.

This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Ivan J. Grimm’s (“Plaintiff”)
objections (Doc. Nos. 74, 75) to Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer’s April 19, 2017
Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 55) insofar as it recommends that: (1) Defendant
Best Buy Co., Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim or, in the Alternative,
for a More Definite Statement be granted as to dismissal and denied as moot as to a more
definite statement; (2) all claims be dismissed with prejudice; (3) Plaintiff’s Motion to
Defer Dispositive Judgment be denied; (4) Plaintiff’s Motion to Disclose Authorization of
Surveillance be denied; and (5) Plaintiff’s Motion to Toll EEOC Statute of Limitations be
denied. Defendant Best Buy Co., Inc., filed a response to Plaintiff’s objections on
May 16, 2017. (Doc. No. 81.)
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. In the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge
recommended that: (1) Plaintiff’s Sarbanes-Oxley claim be dismissed for failure to state

a claim with prejudice because the court could not conceive of any set of facts under
which Plaintiff could be entitled to relief; (2) Plaintiff’s Dodd-Frank claim be dismissed
with prejudice for failure to state a claim; (3) any ADEA claim would be time-barred due
to Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies and because there are no grounds
to waive the limitations period; (4) Defendant’s motion for a more definite statement is
moot; (5) Plaintiff has not alleged a basis for equitable tolling of the EEOC statute of
limitations; (6) because Plaintiff has failed to allege a plausible claim, Plaintiff is not
entitled to a trial and his motion to defer dispositive judgment is moot; and (7) Plaintiff
has failed to provide authority to support his request that the Court disclose whether any
state or federal judge has authorized surveillance of him.
Plaintiff has submitted objections to the Report and Recommendation. It appears
that Plaintiff objects on the following grounds: (1) the Magistrate Judge confused his
claims; (2) the Magistrate Judge erred in concluding that he failed to state a claim under
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act; (3) the Magistrate Judge failed to consider all evidence; (4) the
Magistrate Judge erred in concluding that his ADEA claim was time-barred and not
subject to equitable tolling; and (5) that the Magistrate Judge erred in concluding that
Plaintiff failed to state a claim under Dodd-Frank.
The Court has conducted a de novo review of the record, including a review of the
arguments and submissions of counsel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local
Rule 72.2(b). The Court finds no reason that would warrant a departure from the
Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. In addition, Plaintiff has filed a Motion for
2

Declaration of Mistrial wherein he seeks a mistrial, or in the alternative, for the assigned
judge and magistrate to remove themselves and void all their rulings. (Doc. No. 83.)
There having been no trial in this action, this motion is without merit. In addition,
Plaintiff has not set forth a legitimate basis for recusal. Accordingly, this motion is
denied.
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 Ivan J. Grimm’s objections (Doc. Nos. 74, 75]) to Magistrate

Judge Hildy Bowbeer’s April 19, 2017 Report and Recommendation are OVERRULED.
2.

Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer’s April 19, 2017 Report and

Recommendation (Doc. No. [55]) is ADOPTED.
3.

Defendant Best Buy Co., Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a

Claim or, in the Alternative, for a More Definite Statement (Doc. No. [15]) is
GRANTED as to dismissal and DENIED AS MOOT as to a more definite statement.
4.

All claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

5.

Plaintiff Ivan J. Grimm’s Motion to Defer Dispositive Judgment (Doc.

No. [29]) is DENIED.
6.

Plaintiff Ivan J. Grimm’s Motion to Disclose Authorization of Surveillance

(Doc. No. [37]) is DENIED.
3

7.

Plaintiff Ivan J. Grimm’s Motion to Toll EEOC Statute of Limitations (Doc.

No. [47]) is DENIED.
8.

Plaintiff Ivan J. Grimm’s Motion for Declaration of Mistrial (Doc. No. [83]

is DENIED.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: May 30, 2017

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

4