Fisherman v. Schaefer

Filing 26

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - Plaintiff Corey Edward Fisherman's objections (Doc. No. 24 ) to Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung's January 16, 2019 Report and Recommendation are OVERRULED. Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung' ;s January 16, 2019 Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 23 ) is ADOPTED. Defendant Robert Schaefer's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 16 ) is GRANTED. This matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 3/7/2019. (las)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Corey Edward Fisherman,

Civil No. 17-3766 (DWF/TNL)

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION

Robert Schaefer, C. Officer,
Defendant.

This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Corey Edward Fisherman’s
(“Plaintiff”) objections (Doc. No. 24) to Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung’s January 16,
2018 Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 23) insofar as it recommends that
Defendant Robert Schaefer’s Motion for Summary Judgment be granted, this matter be
dismissed with prejudice, and judgment be entered accordingly. Defendant filed a
response to Plaintiff’s objections on March 1, 2019. (Doc. No. 25.)
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
concluded that Plaintiff’s claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Corrections Officer
Robert Schaefer fails because Plaintiff’s claim is against Defendant in his official
capacity and nothing in the record shows that Plaintiff’s rights were deprived on the basis
of a Ramsey County policy or custom. The Magistrate Judge further explained that, even
if Plaintiff properly filed suit against Defendant in his individual capacity, facts deemed

admitted by operation of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 36 and 56 are fatal to
Plaintiff’s claim. These facts include admissions that Plaintiff never informed Defendant
of his religious beliefs or that he required a vegan diet for religious reasons, that
Defendant made and other staff made good-faith efforts to accommodate Plaintiff’s
request for vegan meals and that Plaintiff received vegan meals until staff learned
Plaintiff was trading them for food that contained meat. In addition, the Magistrate
Judge explained that Plaintiff’s claim fails because the undisputed facts show that
Defendant was not aware of Plaintiff’s religious beliefs. Finally, the Magistrate Judge
concluded that Plaintiff failed to state a valid equal protection claim because he failed to
allege that Defendant treated inmates of other religions or races differently.
Plaintiff objects to the Report and Recommendation with a single sentence. (Doc.
No. 24.) Plaintiff’s objections are not supported by any legal argument, authority, or
recitation of fact issues that would preclude summary judgment. This alone would
constitute a waiver of the right to have the Court consider the objection. Even so, after
carefully considering Plaintiff’s objections, the Court finds no reason to depart from the
Magistrate Judge’s recommendation, which is both factually and legally correct.
Based on the Court’s 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),
and the Court being otherwise duly advised in the premises, the Court hereby enters the
following:

2

ORDER
1.

Plaintiff Corey Edward Fisherman’s objections (Doc. No. [24]) to

Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung’s January 16, 2019 Report and Recommendation are
OVERRULED.
2.

Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung’s January 16, 2019 Report and

Recommendation (Doc. No. [23]) is ADOPTED.
3.

Defendant Robert Schaefer’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc.

No. [16]) is GRANTED.
4.

This matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: March 7, 2019

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

3