Przybylski v. State of North Dakota et al

Filing 6

ORDER ADOPTING 4 Report and Recommendation and denying 1 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Chief Judge Peter D. Welte. (EA) Distributed on 4/27/2020 (js).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
Daniel Paul Przybylski,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
) ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
) RECOMMENDATION
State of North Dakota; County of Grand Forks, )
Brett Burkholder; Administrator, Michael
) Case No. 3:19-cv-279
Pritchard; US Border Patrol, Margo Kern; US )
Attorney Office; Sarah G. Geresek and Haley )
Wamstad, States Attorney; Debbie Nelson,
)
County Auditor; Vanessa Richter, police officer;)
Andrew Schneider, Sheriff; Wayne Stenehjem, )
Attorney General; Office of Assistant Attorney )
General Civil Division at the U.S. Department )
Of Justice; Registered Agent Corporation
)
Service Company North Dakota; The Eye
)
Doctor; Magistrate Judge Alice R. Senechal;
)
Judge John Thelen; Judge Jay Knudson; Judge )
Jason McCarthy; Judge Donald Hager; Judge )
Lolita G. Hartl Romanick; and Sean Marrin
)
#07847, legal counsel;
)
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________________________________________________________
Plaintiff, Daniel Paul Przybylski, submitted for filing a proposed Notice of Removal,
“Affidavit of Truth,” and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Doc. Nos. 1 and 3.
Magistrate Judge Clare R. Hochhalter reviewed the Plaintiff’s proposed Notice of Removal and
motion to proceed IFP, consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
On April 6, 2020, Judge Hochhalter issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending
that the Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP be denied, the Plaintiff’s case be dismissed with
prejudice, and the case be closed. Doc. No. 4. Objections to the Report and Recommendation
were to be filed with the Court by April 24, 2020. The Plaintiff filed an objection on April 22,
2020. Doc. No. 5.

The Court has carefully reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the Plaintiff’s
objection, the 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.
4) in its entirety. The Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP (Doc. No. 1) is DENIED, and this action
is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk’s Office is directed to close this case.
Let judgment be entered accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 27th day of April, 2020.
/s/ Peter D. Welte
Peter D. Welte, Chief Judge
United States District Court

2