Corman v. Stenehjem et al

Filing 10

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 8 by Chief Judge Ralph R. Erickson. The complaint against Defendant Wayne Stenehjem is dismissed with prejudice and the complaint against Jonathan Byers is dismissed without prejudice.(SH)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
Ryan Ray Corman,
Plaintiff,
-vsWayne Stenehjem, ND Atty General, and
Jonathan Byers, Asst. ND Atty General,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:12-cv-114
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

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
Corman’s complaint be dismissed with prejudice as to Defendant Wayne Stenehjem, and that the
complaint be dismissed without prejudice as to Defendant Jonathan Byers (Doc. #8). Corman
filed a response to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. #9). In his response, he asks the Court
to accept and “speedily” adopt the Report and Recommendation even though he “strenuously
objects to the Court’s and law’s apparent willingness to allow Wayne Stenehjem to be
unaccountable for the previous and ongoing civil rights deprivations . . .”
After considering the Report and Recommendation, conducting a de novo review of
Corman’s response/objections, and reviewing the entire file, the Court finds the Magistrate
Judge’s position is correct. Accordingly, the Court hereby adopts the Report and
Recommendation in its entirety. For the reasons set forth therein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
that the complaint against Defendant Wayne Stenehjem be dismissed with prejudice and the
complaint against Jonathan Byers be dismissed without prejudice.

1

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
The Court 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). Furthermore, based upon the
entire record before the Court, dismissal of the motion is not debatable, reasonably subject to a
different outcome on appeal, or otherwise deserving of further proceedings. Therefore, a
certificate of appealability will not be issued by this Court. See Tiedemann v. Benson, 122 F.3d
518, 252 (8th Cir. 1997). If Corman desires further review of his complaint, he may request the
issuance of a certificate of appealability by a circuit judge of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals
in accordance with Tiedemna v. Benson, 122 F.3d 518, 250-252 (8th Cir. 1997).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated this 12th day of April, 2013.

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

2