United States District Court, D. Minnesota
appearance, for Plaintiff.
Midolo, for Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
FRANKLIN L. NOEL, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
matter came before the undersigned United States Magistrate
Judge on September 1, 2017, on Defendants' motion for
summary judgment (ECF No. 56). This matter was referred to
the undersigned for a Report and Recommendation pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636. See Order, ECF No. 62.
case stems from Plaintiff's use, purchase of a reduced
rate, disability fare ticket, and removal from the Northstar
commuter train, and subsequent arrest in July 2015. See
generally Compl., ECF No. 1.Plaintiff's Complaint
raises assorted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging
violations of his First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights.
See generally Id. In the instant motion, the
remaining Defendants, Metro Transit Police Officers David
Hutchinson, Canon Yang, Andrew Carlson, Jordan Trammel, and
Caroline Pruter, move for judgment as a matter of law under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. See ECF No. 56
at 1; ECF No. 58 at 10-11. Specifically, Defendants contend
that Plaintiff's Complaint has not stated a claim for
which relief can be granted pursuant to Rule 8(a) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, has not raised an
actionable constitutional violation, and that they are immune
from suit under the qualified immunity doctrine. See
generally ECF No. 58. Plaintiff has not responded to the
instant motion and did not appear at the hearing.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure mandate that motions for
summary judgment be granted “if the movant shows that
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). Rule 56 further requires the entry of
summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery, against
a party “who fails to make a showing sufficient to
establish the existence of an element essential to that
party's case, and on which that party will bear the
burden of proof at trial.” Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P.
56(c)).To demonstrate a genuine issue of fact, the non-movant
“must do more than simply show that there is some
metaphysical doubt as to the material facts, ” but must
“come forward with ‘specific facts showing that
there is a genuine issue for trial.'”
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,
475 U.S. 574, 586-87 (1986) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)
(emphasis added). “At the summary judgment stage, facts
must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving
party only if there is a ‘genuine' dispute as to
those facts.” Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372,
380 (2007) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)).
the non-movant's “responsibility to show that there
[are] genuine issues of material fact in the record that
[preclude]” the movant's summary judgment request.
Satcher v. Univ. of Ark. at Pine Bluff Bd. of Tr.,
558 F.3d 731, 735 (8th Cir. 2009). “It [is] not the . .
. Court's responsibility to sift through the record to
see if, perhaps, there [is] an issue of fact.”
Id. (citing Rodgers v. City of Des Moines,
435 F.3d 904, 908 (8th Cir. 2006)). “[F]ailure to
oppose a basis for summary judgment constitutes waiver of
that argument.” Id.
Plaintiff has not responded to, nor otherwise opposed,
Defendants' motion for summary judgment. As it stands, in
the absence of any response or challenge from Plaintiff,
Defendants' factual proffer is uncontroverted, and as a
consequence, there are no genuine issues of material fact
precluding summary judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(e). In addition, Plaintiff has waived any argument
contesting Defendants entitlement to judgment as a matter of
law. See Satcher, 558 F.3d at 735. Accordingly, the
Court concludes that the uncontested record and motion for
summary judgment show that Plaintiff's Complaint has not
stated a claim for which relief can be granted pursuant to
Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, has not
raised an actionable constitutional violation, and that
Defendants are immune from suit under the qualified immunity
doctrine. As a result, Defendants are entitled to judgment as
a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)-(e).
upon the foregoing and all of the files, records, and
proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY
RECOMMENDED that Defendants' motion for summary
judgment (ECF No. 56) be GRANTED.
to the Local Rules, any party may object to this Report and
Recommendation by filing with the Clerk of Court and serving
on all parties, on or before October 6,
2017, written objections that specifically identify
the portions of the proposed findings or recommendations to
which objection is being made, and a brief in support
thereof. A party may respond to the objecting party's
brief within fourteen (14) days after service thereof. All
briefs filed under the rules shall be limited to 3, 500
words. A judge shall make a de novo determination of those
portions to which objection is made.
the parties are prepared to stipulate that the District Court
is not required by 28 U.S.C. § 636 to review a
transcript of the hearing in order to resolve all objections
made to this Report and Recommendation, the party making the
objections shall timely order and cause to be filed by
October 6, 2017 a complete transcript of the hearing.
Report and Recommendation does not constitute an order or
judgment of the District Court, and it is, therefore, not