United States District Court, D. Minnesota
DANA D. JACKSON, Plaintiff,
WELLS FARGO and PLAZA SERVICES, LLC, Defendants.
ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
E. Brasel United States District Judge
Court has received the October 9, 2019 Report and
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Becky R.
Thorson. [ECF No. 9 (“R&R”).] The R&R
recommended dismissing all the claims brought by Plaintiff
Dana D. Jackson, “except for her claim against
Defendant Plaza Services, LLC (Plaza Services) under the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§
12101-213.” (Id. at 1.) After the R&R was
issued, Jackson filed a letter citing additional statutory
bases for her claims. [ECF No. 13.] Jackson also filed a
letter asking to be assigned a new Magistrate Judge. [ECF No.
14.] The Court construes this second letter as a motion to
recuse Judge Thorson.
basis for her motion appears to be that Judge Thorson called
her “malicious” and showed “cold hearted
malice” towards her. [ECF No. 14 at 1.] The Court
believes these allegations are based on a separate Report and
Recommendation Judge Thorson issued in a related case.
See Report and Recommendation, Jackson v. Wells
Fargo of Plaza Services LLC, 19-CV-2694 (NEB/BRT) (D.
Minn. Oct, 24, 2016), ECF No. 6 (“Related Case
R&R”). In the Related Case R&R, Judge Thorson
stated the rule that “[a]n IFP application will be
denied, and an action dismissed, if the plaintiff has filed a
complaint found to be ‘frivolous or malicious.' 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).” (Related Case R&R
at 1.) Judge Thorson recommended that the related case be
dismissed with prejudice. (Id. at 3.)
may seek a judge's recusal under 28 U.S.C. §
or 28 U.S.C. § 144. But “judicial rulings alone
almost never constitute a valid basis for a [recusal]
motion.” Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S.
540, 555 (1994). A reviewing court may consider a party's
motion to recuse a United States Magistrate Judge. See,
e.g., United States v. Andrews, 381 F.Supp.3d
1044, 1057 (D. Minn. 2019). If a party makes this motion in
response to an R&R, the Court will consider the motion
when it is deciding whether to accept the R&R. See,
e.g., id. Here, Jackson's basis for her
request to recuse Judge Thorson is solely Judge Thorson's
reasoning and recommendation in the Related Case R&R.
Nothing in that R&R suggests bias or
prejudice. There is no basis to remove Judge Thorson
from this case and Jackson's request is denied.
other filing, ECF No. 13, provides additional statutory bases
for her claim. This letter does not state any specific
objections to the R&R. “Without objections, a
district court is under no obligation to review the factual
or legal conclusions of such a report, absent requirements
from the Circuit in which it sits.” Reed v. Curry
Concrete Constr., Inc., No. 10-CV-4329 (JRT/LIB), 2011
WL 2015217, at *2 (D. Minn. May 23, 2011). When a party does
not cite any reason why the R&R is incorrect, nor any
basis for the Court to reach a different outcome, the Court
is not required to conduct a de novo review of the
Magistrate Judge's recommendations. See Hudson v.
Gammon, 46 F.3d 785, 786 (8th Cir. 1995) (requiring
de novo review only for the portions of the R&R
to which objections are made). Jackson's filing does not
cite any specific objections to the R&R, so the court
reviews the R&R for clear error. Reed, 2011 WL
2015217, at *2 (collecting cases); see also Grinder v.
Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam)
(acknowledging that district courts review R&Rs for clear
error absent an objection). The Court finds Judge
Thorson's reasoning sound and finds no legal basis to
depart from her recommendations.
no clear error, and based upon all the files, records, and
proceedings in the above-captioned matter, IT IS HEREBY
Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 9] is ACCEPTED;
claims against Defendant Wells Fargo in the First Amended
Complaint [ECF No. 5] based on the Americans with
Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-213 are
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE;
claims based on (1) a “right to free trade” based
on an agreement associated with the World Trade Organization;
and (2) the U.S. Constitution's Contracts Clause in the
First Amended Complaint [ECF No. 5] are DISMISSED WITHOUT
claims based on 18 U.S.C § 1951 in the First Amended
Complaint [ECF No. 5] are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;
Defendant Wells Fargo is DISMISSED from this action; and
Plaintiff's request for a new United States Magistrate
Judge [ECF No. 14] is DENIED.