Olafson v. Schulz et al

Filing 128

ORDER ADOPTING 125 Report and Recommendation by Chief Judge Peter D. Welte. (EA) Distributed on 4/20/2020 (pb).

Case 3:14-cv-00090-PDW-ARS Document 128 Filed 04/20/20 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
Andrew James Olafson,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Kerry Wicks, Alex Schweitzer, and
Dr. Mark Rodlund,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION
Case No. 3:14-cv-90

Plaintiff, Andrew James Olafson, proceeding pro se, asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
related to his confinement at the North Dakota State Hospital (“NDSH”) as a sexually dangerous
individual. Doc. No. 6. Magistrate Judge Alice R. Senechal initially reviewed the Plaintiff’s claims
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(A) and allowed certain claims to proceed, dismissed certain other
claims, and stayed three claims. Doc. Nos. 16 and 21. The claims that were allowed to proceed
were then dismissed on summary judgment. Doc. No. 114. As a result, the only remaining claims
are the three stayed claims.
In light of the recent decisions in Karsjens v. Piper, 845 F.3d 394 (8th Cir. 2018) and Ireland
v. Jones, Case No. 3:13-cv-3, on March 10, 2020, Magistrate Judge Senechal ordered the Plaintiff
to show cause why the three remaining claims should not be dismissed. Doc. No. 123. The Plaintiff
responded and requested additional time to submit documents. Doc. No. 124. Judge Senechal
denied the request for an extension of time, as none of the requests had any relation or bearing on
the effect of the Ireland and Karsjens decisions and proceeded with an initial review of the three
stayed claims. Doc. No. 125.
On April 2, 2020, Judge Senechal issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that
the Plaintiff’s remaining claims against the remaining three Defendants be dismissed, the case be
closed, and judgment be entered accordingly. Doc. No. 125. Additionally, because any appeal

Case 3:14-cv-00090-PDW-ARS Document 128 Filed 04/20/20 Page 2 of 2
would be frivolous and could not be taken in good faith, Judge Senechal recommended finding any
appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis. Id. Objections to the Report and Recommendation were
to be filed with the Court by April 16, 2020. The Plaintiff filed an objection to the Report and
Recommendation on April 15, 2020. Doc. No. 127.
The Court has carefully reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the Plaintiff’s objection,
relevant case law, and the entire record, and finds the Report and Recommendation to be persuasive.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 125) in its entirety.
The Plaintiff’s claims against the remaining Defendants are DISMISSED with prejudice, the case
shall be closed, and judgment shall be entered accordingly. No relief can be granted to the Plaintiff
in this action. The Court further finds that any appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis, as any
appeal would be frivolous and could not be taken in good faith.
Let judgment be entered accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 20th day of April, 2020.
/s/ Peter D. Welte
Peter D. Welte, Chief Judge
United States District Court

2