Corman v. Stenehjem et al

Filing 32

ORDER ADOPTING 30 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION by Chief Judge Ralph R. Erickson and dismissing this case with prejudice.(SH)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
Ryan Ray Corman,
Plaintiff,
-vsHaley Wamstad, Andrew Eyre, Orie
Oksendahl, and CPC Rule, Inc.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:12-cv-91
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION

The Court has received a Report and Recommendation from the Honorable Karen K.
Klein, United States Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, recommending that Plaintiff
Ryan Corman’s amended complaint be dismissed with prejudice (Doc. #30). Corman timely
filed objections to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. #31). The Court has carefully
considered Corman’s objections along with the entire file and now issues this Order finding that
Corman has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
In his objection, Corman comments on North Dakota’s civil commitment procedures and
his classification as a sexually dangerous individual. These particular legal issues are before the
Court in a separate action involving Corman (Ireland v. Olson, 3:13-cv-03), and will not be
addressed here. Relevant to this case, Corman reiterates information about the defendants, which
is already contained in documents filed with the Court. He claims the defendants deliberately
misrepresented facts to the state court in order to convince the judge to civilly commit him. He
contends the defendants were motivated by two “agendas”: (1) “to silence and discredit [him]
with respect to his direct, personal knowledge of heinous malfeasance perpetrated by officers and

1

agents of the Grand Forks Narcotics Task Force”; and (2) “the feeding of the State’s Atty’s ‘sex
offender industry’ to permanently silence and definitively discredit [Corman] by fabricating
means to use North Dakota’s overly broad statute, under which virtually any crime can be made a
‘sex offense’”. Neither of these conclusory allegations are supported by any evidence.
Moreover, the Court has combed through the record and agrees with the magistrate
judge’s analysis that Corman has failed to state a claim that would entitle him to relief. The
Court hereby adopts the reasoning contained in the magistrate judge’s Report and
Recommendation. For the reasons stated therein, Corman’s amended complaint is dismissed
with prejudice.
Based upon the entire record before the Court, dismissal of the action is not debatable,
reasonably subject to a different outcome on appeal, or otherwise deserving of further
proceedings. The Court, therefore, certifies that an appeal from the dismissal of this action may
not be taken in forma pauperis because such an appeal would be frivolous and cannot be taken in
good faith. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated this 21st day of February, 2014.

/s/ Ralph R. Erickson
Ralph R. Erickson, Chief Judge
United States District Court

2