Chief Mad Bear Lineal Descendents, et al. et al v. Henderson et al

Filing 5

ORDER by Judge Daniel L. Hovland ADOPTING 3 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS.(JM)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
Chief Mad Bear Lineal Descendants, et. al., )
and Jeff McLaughlin, Sr.,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
)
AND RECOMMENDATION
vs.
)
)
Case No. 1:16-cv-94
Col. John Henderson, P.E. Distr. Cmdr;
)
Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE); Dakota )
Access Pipeline (DAPL) a/k/a Energy
)
Transfer Parnters, LLC; and Kelcey
)
Warren, CEO,
)
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________________________________________________________
On April 27, 2016, Jeff McLaughlin, Sr., filed an “Application to Proceed in District Court
without Prepaying Fees or Costs.” See Docket No. 1. Attached to the application was a proposed
complaint. See Docket No. 1-1. In McLaughlin’s proposed complaint, he asserts ownership of
the Missouri River and surrounding lands on behalf of Chief Mad Bear’s lineal descendants,
objects to implementation of the Pick-Sloan Plan and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’
management of the Missouri River system, and requests that the Court temporarily enjoin
construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline, pending a hearing to address “environmental
injustices.” See Docket No. 1-1.
On May 11, 2016, Magistrate Judge Charles S. Miller, Jr. entered an Order and Report and
Recommendation. See Docket No. 3. In Judge Miller’s Order and Report and Recommendation,
he granted McLaughlin’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 1) and directed
the Clerk’s office to file McLaughlin’s proposed complaint. See Docket Nos. 2 and 3. Judge
Miller went on to review and analyze McLaughlin’s complaint, and he recommended that the
action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a cognizable claim. See Docket No. 3.
1 

Judge Miller further recommended that, insofar as McLaughlin was requesting a temporary
restraining order, the request be denied. The parties were given fourteen days to file any objections
to the Report and Recommendation. On May 20, 2016, McLaughlin filed an objection to Judge
Miller’s Report and Recommendation. See Docket No. 4.
The Court has carefully reviewed Judge Miller’s Report and Recommendation, the
objection to the Report and Recommendation, the relevant case law, and the entire record, and
finds the Report and Recommendation to be persuasive and McLaughlin’s objection to be
unpersuasive. McLaughlin has failed to state a cognizable claim, and he has not set forth a
sufficient factual or legal basis for the issuance of any restraining order, ex parte or otherwise.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 3) in its entirety
and ORDERS the action to be DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a cognizable
claim. Further, insofar as McLaughlin is requesting a temporary restraining order, the request is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 26th day of May, 2016.
/s/ Daniel L. Hovland
Daniel L. Hovland, District Judge
United States District Court 

2