Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Gbleah v. Minnesota Unemployment Insurance

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

May 28, 2014

Takpor Gbleah, Plaintiff,
v.
Minnesota Unemployment Insurance, and Madonna Tower of Rochester, Defendants.

ORDER

PAUL A. MAGNUSON, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on the supplemental Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of United States Magistrate Judge Jeffrey J. Keyes dated May 13, 2014. The R&R recommended that this Court summarily dismiss this action. Plaintiff filed a letter to Magistrate Judge Keyes, which the Court will construe as an objection to the supplemental R&R. According to statute, the Court must conduct a de novo review of any portion of the Magistrate Judge's opinion to which specific objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); D. Minn. L.R. 72.2(b). Based on that de novo review, the Court adopts the R&R.

In his objection, Plaintiff claims that contrary to the conclusion of the R&R he is not trying to sue Minnesota Unemployment Insurance, a state agency with Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal court. But his Amended Complaint lists "Minnesota Unemployment Insurance" as a Defendant in this matter. As the supplemental R&R concluded, Minnesota Unemployment Insurance is not subject to suit in this Court and must be dismissed. (Supp. R&R (Docket No. 5) at 1-2.)

Plaintiff also claims that he is merely asking this Court to order Minnesota Unemployment Insurance and Madonna Tower of Rochester to provide him with a hearing on his claim that he was wrongly accused of being overpaid. But such a claim, if cognizable at all, is not a federal claim. To the extent that Plaintiff believes that Defendants' actions may have violated his constitutional rights, such a claim cannot succeed against a private employer.[1] (See id. at 3 (discussing "under color of state law" requirement in 42 U.S.C. § 1983).)

Magistrate Judge Keyes correctly concluded that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint fails to state any actionable claim against either of the named Defendants. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 2) is DENIED; and
2. This action is summarily dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.