Gamble et al v. Minnesota State-Operated Services et al

Filing 160

ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; Adopting Magistrate Judge's Recommendation 146 ; Denying without prejudice Plaintiffs' Motion to Conditionally Certify a Collective Action Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 216 and Identified Consenting Individuals as Collective Action Plaintiffs and Authorize Notice to Other Potential Collective Action Plaintiffs 134 ; denying as moot Plaintiffs' Motion to Accept Late Filing of Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum 149 . (Written Opinion) Signed by Chief Judge John R. Tunheim on 4/20/2018. (JMK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
DAVID LE ROY GAMBLE, JR., CYRUS
P. GLADDEN, II, DAVID J. JANNETTA,
JERRAD W. WAILAND, and
CLARENCE A. WASHINGTON,

Civil No. 16-2720 (JRT/KMM)

ORDER ON REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiffs,
v.
MINNESOTA STATE-OPERATED
SERVICES, MINNESOTA STATE
INDUSTRIES, MINNESOTA SEX
OFFENDER PROGRAM, DEPARTMENT
OF HUMAN SERVICES, STATE OF
MINNESOTA, EMILY JOHNSON PIPER,
SHELBY RICHARDSON, JOHN AND
JANE DOES 1-20, LUCINDA JESSON,
DENNIS BENSON, NANCY A.
JOHNSTON, SHIRLEY JACOBSON, and
CHARLIE HOFFMAN,
Defendants.

David Le Roy Gamble, Jr., Jerrad W. Wailand, and Clarence A.
Washington, St. Peter Regional Treatment Center, 100 Freeman Drive, St.
Peter, MN 56082, Cyrus P. Gladden, II and David J. Jannetta, Minnesota
Sex Offender Program, 1111 Highway 73, Moose Lake, MN 55767, pro se
plaintiffs.
Kathryn I. Landrum, MINNESOTA ATTORNEY GENERAL’S
OFFICE, 445 Minnesota Street, Suite 1100, St. Paul, MN 55101, for
defendants.

Five individuals currently in the custody of the Minnesota Sex Offender Program
(“MSOP”) and participating in MSOP’s “Patient Pay Program” allege violations of the

Fair Labor Standards Act by numerous state-entity and individual Defendants. United
States Magistrate Judge Katherine M. Menendez issued a Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”), recommending that the Court deny without prejudice Plaintiffs’ Motion to
Conditionally Certify a Collective Action (Docket No. 134) because Plaintiffs were
proceeding pro se. (R&R at 2-3, Feb. 16, 2018, Docket No. 146.) Since then, four of the
five named Plaintiffs have obtained counsel. (See Docket Nos. 156-158.) The Court will
adopt the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and deny the Plaintiffs’ motion
without prejudice.
Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

The Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation [Docket No. 146] is ADOPTED.

2.

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Conditionally Certify a Collective Action Pursuant to

29 U.S.C. 216 and Identified Consenting Individuals as Collective Action Plaintiffs and
Authorize Notice to Other Potential Collective Action Plaintiffs [Docket No. 134] is
DENIED without prejudice.
3.

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Accept Late Filing of Plaintiffs’ Reply Memorandum

[Docket No. 149] is DENIED as moot.
DATED: April 20, 2018
at Minneapolis, Minnesota.

_________s/John R. Tunheim______
JOHN R. TUNHEIM
Chief Judge
United States District Court

-2-