United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Charles Randall, 7423 Frontier Trail, Chanhassen, MN 55317,
pro se plaintiff.
Terner Mnuchin, defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
R. TUNHEIM CHIEF JUDGE.
Randall brought this action against Steven Mnuchin seeking
garnishment of Mnuchin's salary in the amount of $24,
051.00 to compensate Randall for tax withholdings. (Compl. at
4, June 19, 2017, Docket No. 1.) When Mnuchin did not enter
an appearance within 90 days of Randall's filing, the
Magistrate Judge directed Randall to do one of the following:
(1) notify defense counsel immediately that he/she is
required to make an appearance or move for an extension of
time to do so; (2) file an application for entry of default
unless the required pleading was filed within 10 days; or (3)
advise the Court in writing of any good cause to the
contrary. (Magistrate Judge Order, Sept. 20, 2017, Docket No.
25.) When Randall did not take any of those actions, the
Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) recommending that the Court dismiss
the case without prejudice. (R&R, Sept. 29, 2017, Docket
before the Court is the R&R, as well as numerous filings
by Randall alleging “refusal for cause.”
(See Docket Nos. 34, 36, 38, 39, 40, 44, 45, 47, 51,
53.) The Court has reviewed these filings and finds that only
one of them relates to the R&R. In that filing, Randall
submitted a copy of the R&R with the words “Refusal
For Cause” written across it and alleged that he has
“not consented to any Magistrate dispositions of this
case.” (Refusal for Cause at 1 & Ex. 1, Oct. 4,
2017, Docket. No. 38.) None of the filings indicate that
Randall has complied with the Magistrate Judge's order,
and Randall has not formally filed any objections to the
R&R. Because the Court will find that the Magistrate
Judge's recommendation is appropriate, it will adopt the
R&R in full.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
the Federal Magistrate Judges Act, a magistrate judge may
“hear and determine any pretrial matter pending before
the court, ” with a few exceptions that are not
relevant here. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); accord
D. Minn. LR 72.1(a)(2). While a magistrate judge does not
have the authority to decide dispositive issues, except where
the parties consent, he or she does have the authority to
propose findings and recommendations in the form of an
R&R on dispositive issues. See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B)-(C); accord D. Minn. LR 72.2(b). The
R&R must then be reviewed by the district judge, who may
accept, reject, or modify the recommendation. 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(C); accord D. Minn. LR. 72.2(b).
may file “specific written objections” to the
R&R. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2); accord D. Minn. LR
72.2(b)(1). A party's objections “should specify
the portions of the magistrate judge's [R&R] to which
objections are made and provide a basis for those
objections.” Mayer v. Walvatne, No. 07-1958
(JRT/RLE), 2008 WL 4527774, at *2 (D. Minn. Sept. 28, 2008).
For dispositive issues, the Court reviews de novo a
“properly objected to” portion of an R&R.
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 v. Compass Airlines, LLC, 98 F.Supp.3d
1012, 1017 (D. Minn. 2015).
RANDALL'S OBJECTION TO THE R&R
did not formally object to the R&R; however, Docket No.
38 alleges that he has not consented to disposition of the
case by the Magistrate Judge, thus the Court will construe
this document as an objection. Although Randall's
objection was not properly filed, it specifically objects to
the Magistrate Judge's authority, is not an argument that
the Magistrate Judge specifically considered in issuing the
R&R. Thus the Court will review the R&R de novo.
the Magistrate Judge issued the initial order directing
Randall to prosecute the case, he was exercising his
authority under federal law to determine pretrial matters.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Randall need not
consent to the Magistrate Judge's authority, because such
authority is prescribed by federal law. Furthermore, the
order was not a disposition. Thus Randall's objection
fails as to the underlying order.
objection to “dispositions” by the Magistrate
Judge does not apply to the R&R, because the R&R is
not a disposition. The Court now has the authority to accept,
reject, or modify the R&R. See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(C). The Court, not the Magistrate Judge, will issue
the disposition. As such, Randall's objection fails as to
order, the Magistrate Judge correctly noted that the Court
has the power to dismiss a case for lack of prosecution.
See Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630
(1962). Because Randall did not respond to the Magistrate
Judge's order, thus further failing to prosecute his
case, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge's