Johnson v. Minnesota Department of Labor and Ind.

Filing 30

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AS MODIFIED (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright on 08/22/2017. (TJB)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Clarence Johnson, Case No. 17-cv-0347 (WMW/BRT) Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AS MODIFIED v. Minnesota Department of Labor & Industry, Defendant. This matter is before the Court on the June 14, 2017 Report and Recommendation (R&R) of United States Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson. (Dkt. 27.) The R&R recommends granting the motion to dismiss filed by Defendant Minnesota Department of Labor & Industry, (Dkt. 18), for three reasons: (1) Plaintiff Clarence Johnson fails to establish subject-matter jurisdiction, (2) Johnson’s complaint fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted, and (3) Johnson’s complaint is barred by sovereign immunity. No objections to the R&R were filed in the time period permitted.1 In the absence of timely objections, this Court reviews an R&R for clear error. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note to 1983 amendment (“When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on 1 On June 19, 2017, the Court received a letter from Johnson dated June 14, 2017. (Dkt. 29.) Because it appears Johnson signed this letter on the same date the R&R issued and the letter does not address the content of the R&R, Johnson’s letter is not construed as an objection to the R&R. the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”); Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam). Having reviewed the R&R, the Court concludes that Johnson’s complaint should be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). See Osborn v. United States, 918 F.2d 724, 730 (8th Cir. 1990) (explaining that plaintiff bears the burden of proving basis of federal jurisdiction). Because Johnson fails to establish the basis for federal jurisdiction, the Court declines to adopt the R&R’s alternative recommendations to grant Defendant’s motion to dismiss Johnson’s claims on the merits. See Godfrey v. Pulitzer Publ’g Co., 161 F.3d 1137, 1141 (8th Cir. 1998) (explaining that federal jurisdiction is a threshold issue). ORDER Based on the R&R and all the files, records and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. The June 14, 2017 R&R, (Dkt. 27), is ADOPTED AS MODIFIED; 2. Defendant Minnesota Department of Labor & Industry’s motion to dismiss, (Dkt. 18), is GRANTED to the extent it asserts the lack of federal jurisdiction; and 3. Plaintiff Clarence Johnson’s complaint, (Dkt. 1), is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. Dated: August 22, 2017 s/Wilhelmina M. Wright Wilhelmina M. Wright United States District Judge 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?