Kuklin v. Regents of the University of Minnesota et al

Filing 59

ORDER re [ECF No. 55 ] Report and Recommendation. (1) Plaintiff's objections to the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 56 ] are OVERRULED. (2) Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 43 ] is GRANTED. (3) Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction [ECF No. 26 ] is DENIED AS MOOT. (4) The case be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Joan N. Ericksen on 9/5/2018. (CBC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Maxim V. Kuklin,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil No. 17-5416 (JNE/KMM)
ORDER

Regents of the University of Minnesota, et al.,
Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) issued
by the Honorable Katherine Menendez, United States Magistrate Judge, on July 9, 2018.
ECF No. 55. The R&R recommends dismissing this action because sovereign and
qualified immunity bars certain claims, and Plaintiffs failed to state a cause of action with
respect to the remaining claims. Id. Plaintiffs objected to the R&R’s analysis and
recommendation. ECF No. 56. Defendants responded in support of the R&R’s
recommended disposition. ECF. No. 57. The Court conducted a de novo review of the
record. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); D. Minn. LR 72.2(b)(3).
Plaintiff objects to the R&R’s conclusion that there is “no clearly established right
to due process in the context of an academic dismissal.” ECF No. 56 at 1. However,
even if the Court assumes that a clearly established right to due process exists, qualified
immunity still bars his claim. Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity
unless the officials (1) violated a constitutional right that (2) was “clearly established at
the time such that a reasonable person would have known that his conduct violated the
law.” Monroe v. Arkansas State Univ., 495 F.3d 591, 594 (8th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff has
1

not alleged conduct that “any reasonable official in the defendant’s shoes would have
understood” to violate Plaintiff’s due process rights. Cf. Plumhoff v. Rickard, 134 S. Ct.
2012, 2023 (2014). Thus, the Court agrees with the R&R’s conclusion that Defendants
are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Count I. For the remaining counts, the
Court adopts the R&R in all other respects. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1.

Plaintiff’s objections to the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 56] are
OVERRULED.

2.

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 43] is GRANTED.

3.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction [ECF No. 26] is DENIED AS
MOOT.

4.

The case be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.

Dated: September 5, 2018
s/ Joan N. Ericksen
JOAN N. ERICKSEN
United States District Judge

2