United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Lillian B. Dettle, Plaintiff,
Treasure Island Resort & Casino, et al., Defendants.
Lillian B. Dettle, pro se.
Rademacher, and Vanya Hogen, for Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
RICHARD NELSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
case is before the Court on Plaintiff's objection
(“Objection”) [Doc. No. 41] to United States
Magistrate Judge Tony Leung's November 30, 2018 Report
and Recommendation (“R&R”) [Doc. No. 38].
Magistrate Judge Leung recommended that the Court dismiss
Plaintiff's Complaint [Doc. No. 1] without prejudice.
(R&R at 1.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court
overrules Plaintiff's Objection, adopts the R&R in
full, and dismisses Plaintiff's Complaint without
Factual and Procedural Background
March 24, 2017, Plaintiff was visiting Treasure Island Resort
& Casino. (Compl. at 4.) While she was there, Plaintiff
bumped into a chair positioned at an odd angle against a slot
machine. (Id.) According to Plaintiff, employees at
Treasure Island saw the injury occur and sent for medical
assistance. (Mot. to Am. Compl. [Doc. No. 13], Ex. 2 at 4.)
Plaintiff was treated at the scene with icepacks and a wrap.
(Compl. at 4.)
leg was “red, sore, bruised, and swollen” after
the accident and continued to worsen in the months following.
(Id. at 4.) She was eventually treated with oral
antibiotics for a possible infection and had a blood clot
removed from her leg. (Id.) While Plaintiff's
condition has improved, her leg is still “painful to
approached Treasure Island to seek compensation for her
injuries. (Id.) Treasure Island engaged Tribal First
as its third-party claim administrator. (Compl., Ex. 1 at 1.)
After conducting an investigation, Tribal First denied
Plaintiff's claims, stating that it found “neither
negligence nor liability” on behalf of Treasure Island.
(Id., Ex. 1 at 3.) Hudson Insurance Group
(“Hudson”) also appears to have been involved in
the processing of Plaintiff's claim. (Am. Compl. [Doc.
No. 11], Ex. 1 at 6-8.)
28, 2017, Plaintiff filed her Complaint against Defendants.
Finding Plaintiff's initial complaint to be inadequate,
the Court gave Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended
complaint. (R&R at 4.) Ultimately, Plaintiff filed both
her Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 11] and a motion to amend her
complaint [Doc. No. 13], accompanied by additional pleading
documents (Mot. to Am. Compl., Ex. 1-2.) On February 28,
2018, the Court construed all of Plaintiff's documents
together as a single pleading, granted her motion to amend,
and granted her leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
(See generally Feb. 23, 2018 Order [Doc. No. 15].)
Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that she “almost
lost [her] leg” due to Treasure Island's
negligence. (Am. Compl. at 6.) Plaintiff asserts that
Treasure Island “should have immediately seen [the
chair] on the cameras” and corrected the situation.
(Id.) In addition, Plaintiff contends that Treasure
Island failed to post signs prohibiting the slanting of
chairs on slot machines. (Id.) Plaintiff seeks
compensatory damages for “medical and prescription
costs” and emotional distress resulting from loss of
sleep and worry over possibly losing her leg. (Compl. at 4.)
Plaintiff also seeks punitive damages. (Id.)
4, 2018, Defendant moved to dismiss this matter based on a
lack of subject matter jurisdiction, tribal immunity,
insufficient service of process, and failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted. (Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss
[Doc. No. 22] (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1), (5), (6).) In a
thorough and well-reasoned R&R, Magistrate Judge Leung
recommended that the Complaint be dismissed without
prejudice. (R&R at 17.) On December 20, 2018, Plaintiff
filed a timely Objection to Magistrate Judge Leung's
R&R. (Obj. at 1.)
Standard of Review
issuance of an R&R, a party may “serve and file
specific written objections to the proposed findings and
recommendations.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). “The
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-cv-1958 (JRT/RLE), 2008 WL 4527774, at
*2 (D. Minn. Sept. 28, 2008). Then, the district court will
review de novo those portions of the R&R to
which an objection is made, and it “may accept, reject,
or modify, in whole or in part, the ...