Kludt v. Aitkin County MN et al

Filing 29

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The Court overrules Plaintiff's Objections 22 and Adopts the 21 Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. It is hereby Ordered that Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 6 is Granted and this action is Dismissed without prejudice. Let Judgment be Entered Accordingly. (Written Opinion) Signed by Chief Judge John R. Tunheim on 8/10/2018. (JMK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
DANIEL J. KLUDT,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil No. 17-4774 (JRT/HB)

MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION

AITKIN COUNTY MN and
AITKIN COUNTY JAIL,
Defendants.

Daniel J. Kludt, No. 253705, Minnesota Correctional Facility – Faribault,
1101 Linden Lane, Faribault, MN 55021, pro se plaintiff.
Jason M. Hill, JARDINE, LOGAN & O’BRIEN, PLLP, 8519 Eagle Point
Boulevard, Suite 100, Lake Elmo, MN 55042, for defendants.

After Plaintiff Daniel Kludt was injured in a shower slip-and-fall, he filed this 42
U.S.C. § 1983 action against Aitkin County, Minnesota, and the Aitkin County Jail
(collectively, “Aitkin County”), alleging that a guard’s refusal to provide him a shower mat
was unconstitutional. Aitkin County removed the case to federal court, answered, and filed
a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation (R&R) that the motion be granted because Kludt failed to state a claim.
Kludt objected generally, but – despite the Court granting his request for additional time to
file – failed to submit specific objections. Because the R&R is sound, the Court will adopt
it, grant Aitkin County’s motion, and dismiss Kludt’s case.

BACKGROUND
Kludt was an inmate at the Aitkin County Jail when he sustained injuries to his back
and shoulder because he slipped and fell in the shower after a guard denied his request for
a shower mat. (Compl. at 4, Oct. 23, 2017, Docket No. 1-1.) Kludt filed this 42 U.S.C. §
1893 action, alleging that the denial of a shower mat violated his Eighth Amendment rights
and seeking $50,000 in damages. (Id.) Aitkin County answered, (Answer, Oct. 23, 2017,
Docket No. 2), and filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, (Mot. for J. on the
Pleadings, Nov. 28, 2017, Docket No. 6). In considering Aitkin County’s motion, the
Magistrate Judge concluded that Kludt’s complaint failed to state a claim and
recommended granting judgment on the pleadings. (R&R at 5-6, Apr. 23, 2018, Docket
No. 21.) Kludt objected generally to the R&R and requested additional time to file specific
objections. (Obj., May 4, 2018, Docket No. 22.) The Court granted Kludt an extension of
time to June 22, 2018, (Order, May 24, 2018, Docket No. 27), but Kludt never filed
supplemental objections.
DISCUSSION
I.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
Upon the filing of an R&R by a magistrate judge, “a party may serve and file

specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b)(2); accord D. Minn. LR 72.2(b)(1). “The district judge must determine de novo
any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b)(3); accord D. Minn. LR 72.2(b)(3). “Objections which are not specific but

-2-

merely repeat arguments presented to and considered by a magistrate judge are not entitled
to de novo review, but rather are reviewed for clear error.” Montgomery v. Compass
Airlines, LLC, 98 F. Supp. 3d 1012, 1017 (D. Minn. 2015).
A motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(c) is reviewed under the same standard as a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).
Clemons v. Crawford, 585 F.3d 1119, 1124 (8th Cir. 2009). The Court considers all facts
alleged in the complaint as true to determine if the complaint states a claim for “relief that
is plausible on its face.” Braden v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 588 F.3d 585, 594 (8th Cir. 2009)
(quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). The Court construes the complaint
in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, drawing all inferences in their favor. Ashley
Cty., Ark. v. Pfizer, Inc., 552 F.3d 659, 665 (8th Cir. 2009).
II.

KLUDT’S OBJECTION
Kludt objects generally to the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that his Complaint

does not establish a prima facie § 1983 claim against Aitkin County.
“[A] municipality may be held liable for the unconstitutional acts of its officials or
employees when those acts implement or execute an unconstitutional municipal policy or
custom.” Mettler v. Whitledge, 165 F.3d 1197, 1204 (8th Cir. 1999) (citing Monell v. Dep’t
of Soc. Servs. of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978)). The lack of a pattern of unconstitutional
misconduct effectively ends the court’s inquiry. Thelma D. ex rel. Delores A. v. Bd. of
Educ. of St. Louis, 934 F.2d 929, 932-33 (8th Cir. 1991).

-3-

Neither Kludt’s complaint nor his objection allege a pattern of unconstitutional
misconduct by Aitkin County officials or employees, even after construing the pleadings
in the light most favorable to Kludt and drawing all inferences in his favor. Therefore,
though Kludt’s injury is regrettable, the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that his
complaint fails to state an actionable claim against Aitkin County. Because there is no
clear error in the R&R, the Court will overrule Kludt’s objection, adopt the R&R, grant
Aitkin County’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, and dismiss this case.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, the Court
OVERRULES Plaintiff’s Objections [Docket No. 22] and ADOPTS the Report and
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 21.] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [Docket No. 6] is
GRANTED and this action is DISMISSED without prejudice.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.

DATED: August 10, 2018
at Minneapolis, Minnesota.

__________

-4-

s/John R. Tunheim
_________
JOHN R. TUNHEIM
Chief Judge
United States District Court