United States District Court, D. Minnesota
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Wilhelmina M. Wright United States District Judge
matter is before the Court on the July 23, 2019 Report and
Recommendation (R&R) of United States Magistrate Judge
Katherine M. Menendez. (Dkt. 181.) The R&R recommends
granting the March 20, 2019 motion for summary judgment filed
by Defendants Stephen Hout, Nanette Larson, Diane Medchill,
Michelle Saari, Sharlene Lopez, Kristin Muhl, Bronson
Austreng, Jeff Titus, and Gregg Smith (DOC Defendants,
collectively), granting the May 3, 2019 motion for summary
judgment filed by Defendant Lon Augdahl, and dismissing the
case with prejudice.
10, 2017, Plaintiff Victor Donnell Fields initiated an action
against Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
alleging that they violated his constitutional rights.
Specifically, Fields alleges that the DOC Defendants and Dr.
Augdahl (1) were deliberately indifferent to his medical
needs, in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United
States Constitution, and (2) subjected him to unequal
treatment on the basis of his race, in violation of the
filed objections to the R&R,  and both the DOC Defendants
and Dr. Augdahl filed timely responses. For the reasons
below, the Court overrules Fields's objections, adopts
the July 23, 2019 R&R, grants the defendants' motions
for summary judgment, and dismisses the action with
Rule 72(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
“a party may serve and file specific written objections
to the proposed findings and recommendations” of a
magistrate judge. Accord LR 72.2(b)(1). Those
portions of an R&R to which an objection is made are
reviewed de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In doing so,
the Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or
in part, the findings or recommendations made by the
magistrate judge.” Id.; accord Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); LR 72.2(b)(3). This Court reviews for
clear error those portions of an R&R to which there are
no objections. See Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793,
795 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam). The burden rests with the
objecting party to state with specificity the basis of the
party's objection. See Cowherd v. Million, 380
F.3d 909, 912 (6th Cir. 2004) (“Generally, the failure
to file specific objections to a magistrate's report
constitutes a waiver of those objections.”). Without
more, merely restating arguments and facts that have been
presented to the magistrate judge does not constitute a
viable objection to an R&R. See Ernst v.
Hinchliff, 129 F.Supp.3d 695, 712 (D. Minn. 2015).
Fields's objections are construed liberally because he is
pro se, see Burgs v. Sissel, 745 F.2d 526, 528 (8th
Cir. 1984) (“[P]ro se pleadings are to be construed
liberally.”), Fields has not objected to any specific
portion of the R&R. This is so even when his objections
are considered under the standard that both the federal and
local rules require. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2);
LR 72.2(b)(1); see also Burgs, 745 F.2d at 528
(“[P]ro se litigants are not excused from failing to
comply with substantive and procedural law.”). Fields
largely reasserts arguments that he made to, and were
rejected by, the magistrate judge. As such, the Court reviews
the R&R for clear error and concludes none
on the R&R, the foregoing analysis, and all the files,
records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY
1. Plaintiff's objections, (Dkt. 182), are
2. The July 23, 2019 R&R, (Dkt. 181), is
3. Defendants' motions for summary judgment, (Dkts. 115,
161), are GRANTED; and
4. This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
5. Plaintiff's motion, (Dkt. 191), is
DENIED as moot.
JUDGMENT BE ...