Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Blaskowski v. State

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

December 29, 2016

ADAM F. BLASKOWSKI Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF MINNESOTA, VICKI LANDWEHR, JOHN SCHERER, MARY MAHLER, and TIM WILLE, Defendants.

          Adam Blaskowski, pro se.

          Kathryn I. Landrum, Assistant Attorney General, MINNESOTA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, for Defendants State of Minnesota, Judge Vicki Landwehr, Judge John Scherer and Judge Mary Mahler.

          Jon K. Iverson, IVERSON REUVERS CONDON, for Defendant Tim Wille.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

          JOHN R. TUNHEIM CHIEF JUDGE

         Plaintiff Adam F. Blaskowski initiated this action in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on April 11, 2016. (Compl., Apr. 11, 2016, Docket No. 1.) The Complaint alleges Defendants State of Minnesota, Minnesota District Court Judge Vicki Landwehr, Minnesota Chief District Court Judge John Scherer, and Minnesota District Court Judge Mary Mahler (collectively, “State Defendants”), and Tim Wille violated a series of statutes, including the Voting Rights Act, 52 U.S.C. §§ 10101 et seq., the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729, the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, 25 U.S.C. §§ 1601 et seq., and the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq. (Compl. at 3.) United States District Court Judge Robert B. Kugler, finding venue improperly laid in New Jersey, ordered the action transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. (Order, June 2, 2016, Docket No. 6.) Prior to transferring the action, however, Judge Kugler granted Blaskowski's application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (Order on Appl. to Proceed Without Payment of Fees, Apr. 14, 2016, Docket No. 2.)

         On June 30, 2016, United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending dismissal of Blaskowski's claims. (R&R at 6, June 30, 2016, Docket No. 19.) The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissing the action finding Blaskowski failed to state a claim on which relief may be granted. (Id. at 4-5.) The Magistrate Judge further recommended dismissal of the allegations against State Defendants with prejudice because Blaskowski filed previous non-meritorious complaints against State Defendants. (Id. at 5.) The Magistrate Judge recommended Blaskowski's claims against Wille should be dismissed without prejudice because this is the first time Blaskowski named Wille as a defendant. (Id.)

         Blaskowski filed timely objections to the R&R. (R&R Objs., July 5, 2016, Docket No. 20.) Blaskowski's objections, however, did not address the Magistrate Judge's recommendation that Blaskowski failed to state a claim on which relief may be granted. (See id.)

         Because the Court finds Blaskowski failed to allege enough facts to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, the Court will overrule Blaskowski's objections, adopt the R&R in part, and dismiss Blaskowski's Complaint against State Defendants with prejudice. But because the Court discovered that Blaskowski filed a previous non-meritorious complaint against Wille, the Court will reject the R&R in part and dismiss Blaskowski's Complaint against Wille with prejudice.

         ANALYSIS

         I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         After a magistrate judge files an R&R, a party may file “specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2); accord D. Minn. LR 72.2(b)(1). “The objections should specify the portions of the magistrate judge's report and recommendation to which objections are made and provide a basis for those objections.” Montgomery v. Compass Airlines, LLC, 98 F.Supp.3d 1012, 1017 (D. Minn. 2015) (quoting Mayer v. Walvatne, No. 07-1958, 2008 WL 4527774, at *2 (D. Minn. Sept. 28, 2008)). On a dispositive motion the Court reviews “properly objected to” portions of an R&R de novo. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3); accord D. Minn. LR 72.2(b)(3). “Objections which are not specific but merely repeat arguments presented to and considered by a magistrate judge are not entitled to de novo review, but rather are reviewed for clear error.” Montgomery, 98 F.Supp.3d at 1017.

         Because Blaskowski did not provide specific objections to the R&R and, instead, generally objected to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation, the Court reviews the R&R for clear error.

         II. FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

         The Magistrate Judge did not clearly err in recommending the Court dismiss this action for failure to state a claim. The Court can dismiss an action “at any time” when an IFP applicant's complaint “fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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