United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Plaintiff, pro se.
Squires and Michael J. Ervin, Rupp, Anderson, Squires &
Waldspurger, P.A., Counsel for Defendants.
MICHAEL J. DAVIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
above matter comes before the Court upon the Report and
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Leo I.
Brisbois dated October 25, 2018.
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.)
brought this action against a number of Lake County
officialspursuant 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
Report and Recommendation
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
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.
Claim based on the Privileges ...