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.

Hoeft v. Eide

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

December 11, 2018

Richard Hoeft, Plaintiff,
v.
Nathan Eide, et al., Defendants.

          Plaintiff, pro se.

          Jay T. Squires and Michael J. Ervin, Rupp, Anderson, Squires & Waldspurger, P.A., Counsel for Defendants.

          ORDER

          MICHAEL J. DAVIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         I. Introduction

         The above matter comes before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois dated October 25, 2018.

         II. Discussion

         A. Background

         Plaintiff, a Wisconsin resident, purchased numerous timber sale permits that allowed him to harvest timber in Lake County, Minnesota between 2009 and 2014. In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Nathan Eide told Plaintiff “if it were up to me, you would not have any of these [timber] sales, because the sale that you have could be cut by one of our loggers up here.” (Comp. ¶ 14.) Later, Plaintiff alleges he was wrongfully criticized for the manner in which he harvested timber and ultimately was put on an “irresponsible list” because he is a Wisconsin resident. (Id. ¶ 20.)

         Plaintiff brought this action against a number of Lake County officials[1]pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983 and 1988, claiming the named defendants discriminated against him because he is a Wisconsin resident, in violation of the Privileges and Immunities Clause. He further claims that they defamed him by criticizing the manner in which he harvested timber and breached the timber permits by interfering in his ability to harvest timber. Plaintiff specifically alleges that “All defendant's are being sued in their personal capacities” (Comp. at 2.) Plaintiff later amended his complaint to add a Lake County Forestry Staff member as a defendant, to add claims of retaliation and conspiracy, and to include additional factual allegations.

         B. Report and Recommendation

         Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which was referred to the Magistrate Judge. Following briefing and oral argument, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation as to all claims asserted in the Amended Complaint. Plaintiff has filed objections to the recommendation that the Court grant Defendants' motion for summary judgment as to his claims of discrimination under the Privileges and Immunities Clause, breach of contract and retaliation. Plaintiff did not object to the recommendations to dismiss his defamation and conspiracy claims.

         Pursuant to statute, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the record. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.2(b). Based upon that review, the Court will adopt the Report and Recommendation.

         C. Objections

         1. Claim based on the Privileges ...


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.