Kludt et al v. MCF-Rush City et al

Filing 50

ORDER: After review, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation 47 of Magistrate Judge. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The Motion to Dismiss 38 is GRANTED; 2. Plaintiff's claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 are DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim; and 3. Plaintiff's state law claims are DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1367(c)(3). LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. (Written Opinion) Signed by Senior Judge Paul A. Magnuson on 6/20/2018. (LLM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Daniel J. Kludt,

Civ. No. 17-3842 (PAM/KMM)
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER

MCF-Rush City; Ofc. Kunze, Indiv. &
Offic. capacity; A-W, Indiv. & Offic.
capacity; Rush City Municipal Water
Source; MCF-Rush City Med. Services;
Jeff Titus, Indiv. & Offic. capacity; Tom
Roy, Indiv. & Offic. capacity; Rush City,
MN; Edward J. Cleary; Trina
Hendrickson, Indiv. & Offic.; and Becky
Gross, Indiv. & Offic.;
Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of
United States Magistrate Judge Katherine M. Menendez dated May 30, 2018. The R&R
recommends granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, dismissing Plaintiff’s federal
claims with prejudice and his state claims without prejudice so that he may pursue those
claims in state court.
Plaintiff Daniel J. Kludt is currently incarcerated at the Minnesota Correctional
Facility in Rush City, Minnesota. He filed this action in August 2017, raising a host of
claims against prison officials. Defendants brought the instant Motion to Dismiss the
Third Amended Complaint on February 7, 2018. Magistrate Judge Menendez ordered
Kludt to respond to the Motion by March 5, 2018. He did not do so, however.

Kludt now objects to the R&R, stating merely that he “object[s] to the Third
Amended Complaint dismissal” and that his “Federal Claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 shall
not be dismissed as [he] need[s] time to review.”

(Docket No. 48.)

He seeks an

additional 60-day extension of the “motion pleadings deadline” because he was “sick in
bed 2 months with a grave illness.” (Docket No. 49 at 1.)
The Court must review de novo any portion of an R&R to which specific
objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Minn. L.R. 72.2(b). After conducting the
required review, the Court ADOPTS the R&R. (Docket No. 47.)
This matter has already been pending for nearly a year, and thus any further
extensions are not warranted. While the Court is sympathetic to Kludt’s health issues, the
fact remains that he has not successfully stated any claim after multiple attempts to
replead. The R&R thoroughly analyzed Kludt’s claims, noting that Kludt had repeatedly
failed to comply with applicable pleading standards and that, in any event, his attempt to
impose supervisor liability on Defendants for violations of § 1983 is contrary to wellestablished law. An extension of time will not cure the substantial and serious defects in
Kludt’s pleadings.
Finally, Kludt asks the Court to provide him with the “complete set of documents
from the date filed” because his documents have “suspiciously gone missing.” (Docket
No. 49 at 1-2.). Should Kludt require copies of documents from his case, he should
contact the Clerk of Court, 316 N. Robert Street, St. Paul, MN 55101. There is likely to
be a charge for any copying request.

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

The Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 38) is GRANTED;

2.

Plaintiff’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are DISMISSED with prejudice
for failure to state a claim; and

3.

Plaintiff’s state law claims are DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: June 20, 2018

s/ Paul A. Magnuson
Paul A. Magnuson
United States District Court Judge

3