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. Catholic Charities Mental Health Clinic

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

December 29, 2016

ADAM F. BLASKOWSKI Plaintiff,
v.
CATHOLIC CHARITIES MENTAL HEALTH CLINIC, JUDITH ROBIN LARSEN, MARY MATTLEN, JOHN SCHERER, and VICKI LANDWEHR, Defendants.

          Adam Blaskowski, pro se.

          ORDER ADOPTING 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 6, 2016. (Compl., Apr. 6, 2016, Docket No. 1.) The Complaint alleges Defendants Catholic Charities Mental Health Clinic, Judith Robin Larsen, Mary Mattlen, Minnesota Chief District Court Judge John Scherer, and Minnesota District Court Judge Vicki Landwehr (collectively, “Defendants”) violated a series of statutes, including, but not limited to, the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, 25 U.S.C. §§ 1601 et seq., the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq., and the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 701 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, Aug. 9, 2016, Docket No. 11.) 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. 7, 2016, Docket No. 2.)

         On August 30, 2016, United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending dismissal of Blaskowski's claims against the Defendants as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). (R&R at 4, Aug. 30, 2016, Docket No. 14.) The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissing the action because Blaskowski's claims wholly lack factual support. (Id. at 2-3.) The Magistrate Judge further recommended the Court restrict Blaskowski from filing new cases in the District of Minnesota without representation by counsel or prior written authorization from a judicial officer. (Id. at 3.) The Magistrate Judge based the recommendation on Blaskowski's history of filing numerous non-meritorious complaints against various Defendants. (Id.)

         Blaskowski filed timely objections to the R&R. (R&R Objs., Sept. 12, 2016, Docket No. 15.) Blaskowski's objections, however, do not address the Magistrate Judge's recommendations. (See id.) Because the Court finds Blaskowski failed to allege sufficient facts to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and has a history of filing similar frivolous claims, the Court will overrule Blaskowski's objections, adopt the R&R, and dismiss Blaskowski's Complaint.

         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. DISMISSAL AS FRIVOLOUS

         The Magistrate Judge did not clearly err when recommending the Court summarily dismiss this matter as frivolous. “[Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)] allows federal courts to dismiss frivolous or malicious actions that are filed in forma pauperis.” Aziz v. Burrows, 976 F.2d 1158, 1158 (8th Cir. 1992). The Supreme Court has held “a complaint, containing as it does both factual allegations and legal conclusions, is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).

         Here, Blaskowski listed a series of statutes Defendants allegedly violated with no indication of the factual circumstances underlying the claims. Thus, even under the most liberal construction, Blaskowski's Complaint “lacks any arguable basis” on the facts presented to the Court. Id. For this reason, the Court will adopt the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and summarily dismiss this action as frivolous pursuant to section 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

         III. RESTRICTION ON FUTURE FILINGS

         The Magistrate Jude also recommended the Court restrict Blaskowski from filing new cases in the District of Minnesota without legal representation or prior written authorization from a judicial officer. For the reasons set forth ...


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.