Allen Raines et al. v. Ronald Hollingsworth et al.

Filing 92

ORDER dismissing case and granting 36 Motion to Dismiss; granting 40 Motion to Dismiss; granting 51 Motion to Dismiss; denying as moot 57 Motion for Leave to ; denying as moot 58 Motion; granting 65 Motion to Dismiss; rejecting 81 Motio n to Dismiss; adopting 85 Report and Recommendation; denying as moot 87 Motion for Leave to ; denying as moot 13 Motion; denying as moot 18 Motion; denying as moot 19 Motion to Dismiss; denying as moot 21 Motion to Dismiss; denying as moot 22 Motion; granting 26 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Chief Judge Karen E. Schreier on 09/28/2009. (KC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT D IS TR IC T OF SOUTH DAKOTA N O R TH E R N DIVISION A L L E N RAINES and E R L E N E RAINES, Plaintiffs, vs. R O N A L D HOLLINGSWORTH, L AD O N N A HOLLINGSWORTH, JACK VON WALD, L O N A L D L. GELLHAUS, C A R L Y L E RICHARDS, M AR K MCNEARY, L O R I EHLERS, KI M BE RL Y DORSETT, TO N Y PORTA, SCOTT MYREN, B I L L GERDES, and D O U G L AS KENNY, all in their ind ividu a l and official capacities Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C iv . 08-1016-KES

O R D E R DISMISSING CASE

P la in tiffs , Allen Raines and Erlene Rainess, filed a pro se civil complaint a s s e rtin g various claims against defendants premised on 42 U.S.C. § § 1983 and 1 9 8 5 . Several pending motions were assigned to United States Magistrate Judge V e ro n ic a L. Duffy pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) for the purpose of c o n d u c tin g any necessary hearings, including evidentiary hearings. On September 2, 2009, Magistrate Judge Duffy submitted her report and r e c o m m e n d a t io n for disposition of these pending motions. Plaintiffs were n o tifie d in the opinion that they had ten days to file objections to the report. Plaintiffs asked for an extension of time to respond to the report and re c o m m e n d a tio n . An extension was granted to September 25, 2009. No

o b je c t io n s were filed. De novo review is required to any objections that are tim e ly made and specific. See Thompson v. Nix, 897 F.2d 356 (8 th Cir. 1990).

E v e n though no objections were timely filed, the court reviewed the matter de n o v o , and finds that the magistrate judge's report and recommendation will be a d o p te d in full. N o w , therefore it is hereby O R D E R E D that this case is dismissed and the report and recommendation o f Magistrate Judge Duffy (Docket 85) is accepted in full as follows: 1. Th e motion to dismiss of the circuit court judges, Jack Von Wald,

To n y Portra, and Scott Myren (Docket 26) is granted. 2. T h e motion to dismiss of the prosecutors, Mark McNeary, Lori

E h le rs , and Kimberly Dorsett (Docket 36) is granted. 3. Th e motions to dismiss of the private attorneys, Lonald Gellhaus

(D o c k e t 40), Carlyle Richards (Docket 51), and Bill Gerdes (Docket 65) is granted. 4. g ra n te d . 5. A ll of the plaintiffs' motions (Docket 13, 18, 19, 21, 22, 57, 58, and Th e motion to dismiss of policeman Douglas Kenny (Docket 81) is

8 7 ) are denied as moot. D a te d September 28, 2009. BY THE COURT:

/s/

Karen E. Schreier

K A R E N E. SCHREIER C H I E F JUDGE

2