Wattleton v. McKenzie
ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations [ECF No. 14 ]. (1) This action is summarily DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). (2) Plaintiff David Earl Wattleton's application to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 2 ] is DENIED. (3) Plaintiff David Earl Wattleton's motion for an extension of time to file objections [ECF No. 16 ] is DENIED. (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Joan N. Ericksen on November 29, 2017. (CBC)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
David Earl Wattleton,
Civil No. 17-1690 (JNE/SER)
This matter is before the Court on a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) issued
by the Honorable Steven E. Rau, United States Magistrate Judge, on October 20, 2017.
ECF No. 14. The R&R recommends that the Court (1) dismiss Plaintiff’s claims without
prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and (2) deny Plaintiff’s application to
proceed in forma pauperis. Id.
Plaintiff filed no objections to the R&R. Instead, Plaintiff filed a motion to extend
the deadline to object to the R&R to allow him “to present additional evidence.” ECF
No. 16 at 1. In the motion, Plaintiff describes an incident of alleged retaliation involving
“Ms. Andrist, the Rochester Medical Center Education Department Supervisor.” Id. The
Court construes this incident as the additional evidence that Plaintiff intends to present.
The Court denies the motion to extend the deadline to object to the R&R. Plaintiff
has already received two prior opportunities to present additional evidence, ECF Nos. 3,
9, and does not intend to object to any aspect of the R&R. See D. Minn. LR 72.2(b)
(allowing “specific written objections to a magistrate judge’s proposed findings and
recommendation”). Therefore, Plaintiff fails to provide good cause for an extension.
See, e.g., Thompson v. Nix, 897 F.2d 356, 357 (8th Cir. 1990) (stating that extensions to
object to an R&R are permitted for good cause); Ponicki v. Minnesota, 10-cv-4527, 2013
WL 2483068, at *6 (D. Minn. June 10, 2013) (“A party must show good cause to obtain
an extension of time.”). Moreover, even if the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for an
extension and considered Plaintiff’s additional evidence, the Court would find that, for
the reasons set for in the R&R, Plaintiff still fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
Accordingly, based on a de novo review of the record, the Court accepts the
recommended disposition. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); D. Minn.
LR 72.2. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) This action is summarily DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
(2) Plaintiff David Earl Wattleton’s application to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF
No. 2] is DENIED.
(3) Plaintiff David Earl Wattleton’s motion for an extension of time to file
objections [ECF No. 16] is DENIED.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: November 29, 2017
s/ Joan N. Ericksen
JOAN N. ERICKSEN
United States District Judge
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?