United States District Court, D. Minnesota
JOHN B. GARDNER, Plaintiff,
v.
TANNA E. WISE; ROBERT NEUGEBOREN; and HUNTINGTON LAMBERT, Defendants.
JOHN
B. GARDNER, PRO SE PLAINTIFF.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
JOHN
R. TUNHEIM CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff
John B. Gardner was admitted to the Harvard Extension
School's Masters in Liberal Arts program in January 2019,
and was administratively removed later that month. (Compl.,
Ex. C (“Ex. C”) at 1, Mar. 14, 2019, Docket No.
1-3; Letter at 1, Mar. 14, 2019, Docket No. 3-1.) Gardner
brought this action against Harvard staff and officials on
March 14, 2019, seeking reinstatement into the program and
alleging that the school discriminated against him based on
his status as a veteran in violation of Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act. (Compl. at 4, Mar. 14, 2019, Docket No. 1; Letter
(“Letter 4”) at 1, Apr. 1, 2019, Docket No. 8.)
Gardner also submitted an application to proceed in forma
pauperis (“IFP”). (Appl., Mar. 14, 2019,
Docket No. 2.) Finally, on April 12, 2019, Gardner filed a
motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”),
again seeking immediate reinstatement into the Harvard
Extension School. (Mot., Apr. 12, 2019, Docket No. 9.)
On
April 25, 2019, Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz filed a
Report and Recommendation (“R&R”)
recommending that the matter be dismissed without prejudice.
(R. & R. at 6, Apr. 25, 2019, Docket No. 11.) Gardner
objects. (Objs., May 13, 2019, Docket No. 12.) Because
Gardner has failed to satisfy basic pleading standards and
has not stated a claim upon which relief may be granted, the
Court will overrule Gardner's objections, adopt the
R&R, deny Gardner's application to proceed IFP, and
dismiss this action without prejudice.
BACKGROUND
Gardner's
association with the Harvard Extension School
(“HES”) is unclear. Early in 2018, Gardner was in
contact with HES administrators. (See, e.g., Compl.,
Ex. B at 5-16.) Gardner alleges that in March 2018, a Harvard
official threatened to find him in violation of Harvard's
student code after Gardner inquired about Harvard Innovation
Lab's protocols for handling personal data. (Letter at
3.) In the fall of 2018, Gardner took a course at HES.
(Letter at 2.) Gardner alleges that Defendant Tanna Wise, his
teaching assistant for that course, discriminated against him
by delaying her email responses and feedback to him as
compared to other students in the class. (See Letter
at 2; Compl., Ex. A (“Ex. A”) at 26-27, Mar. 14,
2019, Docket No. 1-1.) During the fall of 2018, Gardner
emailed Wise several times regarding his section grade, his
concerns about possible discriminatory or disparate
treatment, and his belief that Wise's LinkedIn page was
inaccurate. (See Letter (“Letter 3”),
Ex. 1 at 2-3, Mar. 21, 2019, Docket No. 5-1.) At some point
in 2018, Wise filed a university complaint against Gardner.
(See Ex. C at 3.) On January 15, 2019, Gardner was
admitted to HES. (Letter at 1.) He was administratively
removed on January 31, 2019. (Id.)
In
addition to reinstatement into Harvard's Extension
School, Gardner seeks injunctive relief preserving the
communications between Gardner and the Defendants, dismissing
Wise's university complaint, and mandating that Wise
correct her LinkedIn profile. (Compl. at 4.)
The
Complaint in this action does not include enumerated
paragraphs, but instead asks the Court to “[p]lease see
included documents.” (Id.) The included
documents, totaling 114 pages, contain email threads between
Gardner and the Defendants, emails between Gardner and
third-parties, Gardner's commentary on the email threads,
and internet links. (See generally Ex. A; Ex. C;
Compl., Exs. B, D, Mar. 14, 2019, Docket Nos. 1-2, 1-4.)
Gardner then filed the motion for a TRO. (Mot.) Gardner
initially alleged that the discrimination against him was
based on his status as a veteran. (Letter 4 at 1.)
The
Magistrate Judge recommended that Gardner's IFP
application be denied and the case be dismissed for three
reasons. First, the Magistrate Judge found that the Complaint
did not comply with the pleading standards required by the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (R. & R. at 2-3.)
Specifically, the Magistrate Judge found that the pleadings
did not contain “a short and plain statement of the
claim” as required by Rule 8(a)(2); did not contain
“simple, concise, and direct” allegations as
required by Rule 8(d); were not in numbered paragraphs as
required by Rule 10(b); and contained no factual allegations,
instead relying entirely on attached exhibits. (Id.)
Second, the Magistrate Judge found that Gardner had failed to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted because
veteran status is not protected under Title VI. (Id.
at 4-5 (citing 42 U.S.C. § 2000d).) Finally, the
Magistrate Judge found that, even considering the exhibits
filed with the Complaint, Gardner failed to allege any facts
showing that his veteran status motivated Defendants'
actions. (Id. at 5.)
DISCUSSION
I.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Upon
the filing of a report and recommendation by a magistrate
judge, “a party may serve and file specific written
objections to the proposed findings and
recommendations.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2);
accord D. Minn. L.R. 72.2(b)(1). “The district
judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate
judge's disposition that has been properly objected
to.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3); accord D. Minn.
L.R. 72.2(b)(3). To be proper, the objections must
specifically identify the portions of the report and
recommendation to which the party objects and explain the
basis for the objections. Turner v. Minnesota, No.
16-3962, 2017 WL 5513629, at *1 (D. Minn. 2015).
“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).
II.
GARDNER'S OBJECTIONS
A.
...