United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Stevens, MN Correctional Facility, prose plaintiff.
H. Clark III, Assistant Attorney General, MINNESOTA ATTORNEY
GENERAL'S OFFICE, for defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
R. TUNHEIM Chief Judge
8, 2017, United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois
issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R")
recommending that the Court grant Defendants' motion to
dismiss all of Plaintiff Brad Stevens' claims. (Report
& Recommendation ("R&R") at 39, June 8,
2017, Docket No. 29.) The R&R noted that on March 14,
2017, Stevens indicated that he intended to amend his
complaint; however, he never filed such a motion or a
proposed amended complaint. (Id. at 11; see
also PL's Notice of Hr'g on Mot. to Leave to
File First Am. Compl. & Scheduling Order, Mar. 14, 2017,
Docket No. 25.)
19, 2017, Stevens filed a motion for leave to file a first
amended complaint as well as several documents in support of
the motion. Stevens explained that he mailed the first
amended complaint to the Court on March 11, 2017, but that he
later learned that the Court never received the mailing.
(Decl. of Brad Stevens in Supp. of Mot. for Leave to File
First Am. Compl. ¶¶ 1-3, 8, June 19, 2017, Docket
No. 34.) Also on June 19, 2017, Stevens objected to the
R&R on the grounds that it was "moot, premature, or
irrelevant" because the R&R did not consider
Stevens' first amended complaint, which supposedly cured
deficiencies by modifying the named defendants and the nature
of his claims. (PL's Obj. to R&R at 1-2, June 19,
2017, Docket No. 36.)
on July 17, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued an order
striking Stevens' motion for leave to file a first
amended complaint, as well as his related documents, for
failing to comply with Local Rule 7.1(b) requirements.
(Order, July 17, 2017, Docket No. 46.) On July 27, 2017,
Stevens filed a motion for leave to voluntarily dismiss the
complaint. (Mot. for Leave to Voluntary Dismiss Compl., July
27, 2017, Docket No. 47.) In his motion, Stevens acknowledged
that his objection to the R&R is now "moot or
premature" based on the Magistrate Judge's decision
striking his motion for leave to amend his complaint.
(Id. at 3.) The record does not reflect that the
Court received the first amended complaint prior to the
Magistrate Judge issuing the R&R; the Magistrate Judge,
therefore, did not err when he failed to consider the first
amended complaint. Because Stevens' sole objection to the
R&R fails, the Court will overrule Stevens'
objection, adopt the R&R, and grant Defendants'
motion to dismiss.
the Court will deny Stevens' motion for voluntary
dismissal as moot. The Court notes, however, that the
majority of Stevens' claims are dismissed without
prejudice and the claims that are dismissed with prejudice
are legally deficient such that additional pleadings could
not establish a plausible claim.
on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings
herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
Court OVERRULES Stevens' Objection
[Docket No. 36], ADOPTS the Magistrate
Judge's Report and Recommendation dated June 8, 2017
[Docket No. 29], and GRANTS Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 16], as follows:
a. Stevens' 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims are
DISMISSED with prejudice to the extent they
seek monetary damages against Defendants in their official
b. Stevens' claims against Defendant Paula Thielan are
DISMISSED with prejudice.
c. Stevens' Fifth Amendment claims alleged in Count III
are DISMISSED with prejudice.
d. All other claims are DISMISSED without
Court DENIES Stevens' Motion for Leave
to Voluntarily Dismiss the Complaint [Docket No. 47] as
JUDGMENT BE ...