United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Peter Rickmyer, Pro Se Plaintiff.
Julie K. Bowman, Hennepin County Attorney's Office, 300 South Sixth Street, Suite A-2000, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487, for Defendant William McDonald.
SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Objections [Doc. No. 200] to United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois's February 28, 2014, Order and Report and Recommendation ("R&R") [Doc. No. 197]. For the reasons set forth below, the Court overrules Plaintiff's Objections and adopts the Order and R&R in its entirety.
The Magistrate Judge's Order and R&R documents the factual and procedural background of this case, and the Court incorporates it by reference. Previously, this Court dismissed Plaintiff's claims against all of the Defendants except for William McDonald. (Feb. 5, 2014, Mem. Op. and Order at 22 [Doc. No. 196].)
In his Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff asserted two claims against McDonald: (1) that McDonald conspired and retaliated against Plaintiff, infringing his rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 12203; and (2) "intentional interference with contract"-that McDonald purportedly interfered with Plaintiff's "contract" with the Minnesota Department of Corrections. (Second Am. Compl. at 22-24 [Doc. No. 7].)
On May 30, 2013, McDonald filed and served his Answer [Doc. No. 11]. On November 22, 2013, McDonald moved for summary judgment [Doc. No. 155]. On December 2, 2013, Plaintiff opposed the summary judgment motion [Doc. No. 166].
On December 13, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend Complaint [Doc. No. 171]. On December 20, 2013, McDonald opposed this motion [Doc. No. 177]. The Magistrate Judge subsequently heard oral argument on Defendant's summary judgment motion and Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Complaint. (Jan. 14, 2014 Min. Entry [Doc. No. 190].) On February 19, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued the instant Order and R&R, denying Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint, and recommending that (1) McDonald's Motion for Summary Judgment be granted and (2) all claims against McDonald be dismissed with prejudice. (Feb. 19, 2014, Order and R&R at 25-26 [Doc. No. 197].)
On February 28, 2014, Plaintiff filed his objections [Doc. No. 200] to the Order and R&R. On March 7, 2014, McDonald opposed Plaintiff's objections [Doc. No. 201]. On March 14, 2014, Plaintiff opposed McDonald's opposition to his objections [Doc. No. 202].
A. Standard of Review
A party "may file and serve specific written objections to a magistrate judge's proposed findings and recommendations." D.Minn. LR 72.2(b)(1). The district court will review de novo those portions of the R&R to which an objection is made, and it "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3); D.Minn. LR 72.2(b)(3). ...