United States District Court, D. Minnesota
N. ERICKSEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
is a Muslim of Ethiopian origin and was employed by Defendant
“for about a month.” ECF No. 1, Compl. at 3.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant: served him pizza with
Marijuana during his employment orientation; conspired
“to the unlawful acts against Plaintiff, which include
the use of most notorious, abusive, intrusive, and oppressive
surveillance, physical, mental and psychological torture,
harassment, discrimination, abuses, food poisoning, invasion
of privacy, and retaliation”; and terminated
Plaintiff’s employment for “pretextual
reasons” after Plaintiff complained about unfair
treatment and unlawful employment practices. Compl. at
3–5. On these allegations, Plaintiff brought nine
claims against Defendant: (1) violation of the
anti-retaliation provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA); (2) discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e; (3)
discrimination under the Minnesota Human Rights Act; (4)
violation of the Fourth Amendment; (5) discrimination under
42 U.S.C. § 1981; (6) battery; (7) invasion of privacy;
(8) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (9)
retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a). Compl. at
5–10. He also applied to proceed in forma
pauperis, which was granted. ECF Nos. 2, 4.
Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) dated
August 6, 2019, the Honorable Leo Brisbois, United States
Magistrate Judge, recommended that the Court (1) dismiss all
Plaintiff’s federal claims without prejudice, and (2)
decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims and dismiss them
without prejudice. ECF No. 23 at 13–14. The R&R
found Plaintiff fails to allege facts to support his claims
and only asserts legal conclusions on each of his claims
brought under federal law. ECF No. 23 at 5.
objects to the R&R but has not raised any specific
objections to the Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings
or recommendation. Instead, similar to his Complaint,
Plaintiff states that he “has clearly demonstrated how
the defendant joined conspiracies in concert and violated
plaintiff [sic] rights . . . .” and that Defendant
“had been fully aware of all these mistreatments and
joined the third parties in verbal harassments, performance
sabotages, and drugging [of Plaintiff] . . . .” ECF No.
24 at 2, 11.
district court reviews de novo those portions of an R&R
to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
However, “[o]bjections to an R&R that 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.” Bui v. U.S. Attorney's Office,
Civ. No. 15-2001 (JRT/FLN), 2015 WL 6758142, at *1 (D. Minn.
Nov. 5, 2015), aff'd, 639 F.App'x 396 (8th
Cir. 2016). Applying the latter standard, the Court finds
that the R&R is not clearly erroneous.
Magistrate Judge’s recommendation is fully supported by
both the record and applicable legal principles. The Court
agrees with the findings in the R&R on each of
Plaintiff’s claims under federal law. First, on
Plaintiff’s FLSA claim, Plaintiff fails to allege any
specific facts that Defendant engaged in adverse conduct
related to Plaintiff’s wages or hours that would
trigger the protections of the FLSA. Second, on
Plaintiff’s employment discrimination claims under 42
U.S.C. § 2000e and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Plaintiff
fails to allege any specific facts regarding discriminatory
conduct by Defendant or an adverse employment action by
Defendant related to a discriminatory motive. Third, on
Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim, Plaintiff fails to
plausibly allege what state actor that Defendant, as a
private actor, was working in concert with to violate
Plaintiff’s rights. Fourth, on Plaintiff’s
retaliation claim under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a),
Plaintiff sufficiently pleads he is a member of a protected
class but does not plead facts showing a nexus between his
class and any alleged harassment by his co-workers or
Defendant. The Court also agrees with the R&R’s
recommendation that the Court decline to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining
state law claims because the Court has dismissed
Plaintiff’s claims under federal law. Finally, the
Court finds Plaintiff’s motion for expedited discovery
is moot because the Court dismisses, or declines to retain
jurisdiction over, all claims Plaintiff seeks discovery on.
short, the Court adopts the recommended disposition. IT IS
1. This action [ECF No. 1] is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
2. Plaintiff’s motion for expedited discovery [ECF No.
26] is DENIED AS MOOT.
JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
 In Plaintiff’s objection, he
states that Defendant’s employee serving him pizza with
marijuana “is very specific misconduct and it’s a
claim relief can be granted on [and that] [t]herefore,
plaintiff objects [to] the Report and Recommendation.”
ECF No. 24 at 11. Plaintiff does not state which claim this
allegation is related to or which portion of the R&R
Plaintiff objects to on the basis of this allegation. The
Court does not find this allegation related to his federal
claims, which the Court dismisses, and can only ...