United States District Court, D. Minnesota
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
E. BRASEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Court has received the June 21, 2019 Report and
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Katherine
Menendez. [ECF No. 23 (“R&R”).] Judge
Menendez recommends granting Defendants' motion to
dismiss on the grounds of sovereign immunity and for failure
to state a claim. Plaintiff Daniel Aaron Wilson
objects to the R&R, arguing the case has merit
because it: (1) “was given [to] a competent Magistrate
Judge, ” (2) states viable claims seeking prospective
injunctive relief, and (3) alleges sufficient facts to
withstand a Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) motion to
dismiss. [ECF No. 25.]
Court reviews de novo those portions of the R&R to which
a party specifically objects and the remainder for clear
error. See D. Minn. L.R. 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.” Woolery v. Peterson, No. CV
16-1745 JRT/FLN, 2016 WL 6916801, at *1 (D. Minn. Nov. 22,
2016) (quoting and citing Montgomery v. Compass Airlines,
LLC, 98 F.Supp.3d 1012, 1017 (D. Minn. 2015)).
Similarly, the Court may review the R&R as if no
objections were filed when a party “does not cite any
reason why the Magistrate Judge's determination was
incorrect, nor any basis for th[e] Court to reach a different
outcome.” Reed v. Curry Concrete Const., Inc.,
No. CV 10- 4329 JRT/LIB, 2011 WL 2015217, at *2 (D. Minn. May
23, 2011) (quotation marks and citations omitted).
Wilson's objections do not raise new arguments or address
why Judge Menendez's findings and recommendations are
erroneous. Wilson merely disagrees with the R&R and
restates his contention that he has pled enough
facts. Judge Menendez considered the facts
alleged in Wilson's complaint and correctly determined he
failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
most, Wilson objects specifically to the determination that
the Eleventh Amendment bars the official capacity claims for
damages. He argues that Judge Menendez erred by failing to
consider the Ex Parte Young doctrine, which would
allow his claims requesting prospective injunctive relief to
survive the motion to dismiss. [ECF No. 25 at 2.] Wilson is
correct that the Ex Parte Young exception to
sovereign immunity applies when the “complaint alleges
an ongoing violation of federal law and seeks relief properly
characterized as prospective.” Verizon Maryland,
Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Commʹn of Maryland, 535 U.S.
635, 645 (2002) (citation omitted). But the complaint fails
to sufficiently allege violations of Wilson's First and
Fourteenth Amendment rights. Because of this, the Court need
not consider whether the relief Wilson seeks is properly
characterized as prospective. Wilson has not pled enough
facts to plausibly suggest an entitlement to prospective
injunctive relief. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 679 (2009). Therefore, the Court grants the motion to
on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, the
Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs' objections [ECF No. 25] and
ACCEPTS the R&R [ECF No. 23]. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY
1. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 11] is GRANTED;
2. The § 1983 claims against the Minnesota Sex Offender
Program and over any official- capacity claims under §
1983 for monetary damages are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for
lack of subject-matter jurisdiction;
3. All other claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure
to state a claim.
JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
 In addition to his objections, Wilson
filed a document entitled “Plaintiffs' Final
Response to Court and Defendants on Objections from Report
and Recommendation, ” which functions as a reply brief.
[ECF No. 27.] The Court need not consider Wilson's reply
because the local rules do not permit such filing.
See D. Minn. LR 72.2(b) (providing only for written
objections to an R&R and a response prior to a district
judge's review of the R&R). Even if the Court
considered it, it would not change the analysis.
 The objections are arguably untimely,
but the Court will consider them. “The Court notes that
the deadline for filing objections is not jurisdictional, and
late-filed objections can be considered where the filing is
not egregiously late and causes no prejudice to any adverse
party.” Iron Workers Mid-S. Pension Fund v.
Davis, No. CIV. 13-289 JRT/HB, 2014 WL 5206373, at *4
(D. Minn. Oct. 14, 2014) (citation and quotation marks
 Even under a liberal construction of
the objections, Wilson does not argue additional facts to
bolster his claims. Because no specific facts support his
First and Fourteenth Amendment claims, the Court declines the