Ru 7 et al v. Kilgore Dainja et al
ORDER ADOPTING 4 Report and Recommendation; Plaintiffs' Objections 6 are Overruled; denying 2 Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs; Plaintiffs' Complaint 1 is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Ann D. Montgomery on 11/21/2017. (TLU)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Naga Ru 7 and Baba Dainja El,
Civil No. 17-4237 ADM/BRT
Latasha Rochelle Kilgore Dainja,
State of Minnesota Inc., Minnesota
Department of Human Services,
Minnesota Department of Revenue,
County of Hennepin et. al., and
Legal Aid Society of Minneapolis,
Baba Dainja El, pro se.
This matter is before the undersigned United States District Judge for a ruling on Plaintiff
Baba Dainja El’s (“Dainja El”) Objection [Docket No. 6] to Magistrate Judge Becky R.
Thorson’s October 31, 2017 Report and Recommendation [Docket No. 4] (“R&R”). In the
R&R, Judge Thorson recommends: (1) denying Plaintiffs’ Application for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis (“IFP”) [Docket No. 2]; and (2) dismissing the Complaint [Docket No. 1]
without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). For the reasons set forth below, the
Objection is overruled.
Plaintiffs’ Complaint, titled “Independent Admiralty Maritime 9(H) Action,” appears to
be based on a child custody dispute or child support collection action against Dainja El in
Hennepin County District Court. See Compl. [Docket No. 1] at 12–15. Plaintiffs challenge the
validity of the state court proceedings. Id. at 14-40.
The R&R recommends denying Plaintiffs’ IFP Application and dismissing the action
without prejudice because the allegations in the Complaint are indecipherable and fail to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted. Dainja El objects, arguing Judge Thorson “has no
standing in law or in these matters and all her statements and comments, are moot and null and
void.” Obj. at 2. Dainja El also disagrees that the Complaint is indecipherable.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), a magistrate judge is authorized to submit findings and
recommendations to a district judge regarding dismissal of a case for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted. In reviewing a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the
district court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C);
see also D. Minn. L.R. 72.2(b). A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in
part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id.
After de novo review, the Court agrees with Judge Thorson that the Complaint is
indecipherable and fails to allege facts that would support a plausible claim for relief. Therefore,
the R&R is adopted in its entirety.
Based upon the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that:
Plaintiff Baba Dainja El’s Objection [Docket No. 6] to Magistrate Judge Becky R.
Thorson’s October 31, 2017 Report and Recommendation [Docket No. 4] is
The Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED;
The Application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Docket No. 2] is
Plaintiffs’ Complaint [Docket No. 1] is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
BY THE COURT:
s/Ann D. Montgomery
ANN D. MONTGOMERY
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: November 21, 2017.
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?