Adetiloye v. United States of America et al

Filing 22

ORDER ADOPTING 18 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS by Chief Judge Ralph R. Erickson. The complaint is dismissed with prejudice.(SH)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
Adekunle O. Adetiloye,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 3:14-cv-05

-vsORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION

Cass County Warden, Individually,
Personally and Professionally, Cass
County Jail, Individually, Personally
and Professionally, Cass County
Unknown Medical Staff, Individually,
Personally and Professionally, United
States of America, United States
Department of Justice, United States
Marshals Services, and Unknown, Two
unknown United States Marshals,
custodians/transporters-Individually,
Personally and Professionally,
Defendants.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the court has received a Report and Recommendation
from the Honorable Alice R. Senechal, United States Magistrate Judge, recommending that
the court dismiss Adekunle Adetiloye’s complaint with prejudice.1 Adetiloye has submitted
57 pages of objections to the report and recommendation.2
The court has reviewed Adetiloye’s objections, including his claim that North Dakota
law applies and his assertion that the court should consider the seriousness of his head
injury as well as the delay in treatment. The court does not discount Adetiloy’s alleged
injuries from his fall. However, Adetiloye’s objections do not overcome the legal obstacles
identified by the magistrate judge. The claims in this case are governed by federal law. It

1

Doc. #18.

2

Doc. #21.

1

is well established that the only proper defendant in an FTCA claim is the United States,
and the discretionary function exception bars Adeliloye’s claims with regard to the
marshals’ conduct.3

Moreover, the Cass County Jail employees were independent

contractors and thus the United States is not liable for their actions.
With regard to his § 1983 claim, county jails are not legal entities amenable to suit
and federal defendants cannot be sued under § 1983.4 As to the non-federal defendants,
Adetiloye has not identified a county policy or custom that caused his alleged constitutional
deprivation.
Finally, Adetiloye has failed to provide facts supporting his Bivens claim that the
marshals were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs or the conditions of
confinement. Thus, he is not entitled to relief.
After reviewing the record and Adetiloye’s objections, the court adopts in its entirely
the magistrate judge’s analysis of the claims and recommendations for disposition. For the
reasons stated therein, Adetiloye’s complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. The court
finds that any appeal would be frivolous, could not be taken in good faith, and many not be
taken in forma pauperis.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated this 10th day of July, 2015.
/s/ Ralph R. Erickson
Ralph R. Erickson, Chief Judge
United States District Court

3

28 U.S.C. § 2679(b)(1); Riley v. United States, 486 F.3d 1030, 1032 (8th Cir. 2007) (stating the
two step analysis for the discretionary function exception).
4

See District of Columbia v. Carter, 409 U.S. 418, 424-25 (1973).

2