Opinion
24-cv-1389 (KMM/ECW)
06-26-2024
Makusha Gozo, Plaintiff, v. DHS, City of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, State of Minnesota, and Secretary Mayorkas, Defendant.
ORDER
Katherine M. Menendez, United States District Judge
On May 31, 2024, United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending dismissal of Plaintiff Makusha Gozo's Second Amended Complaint. Mr. Gozo had until June 14, 2024 to file objections to the R&R. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2); D. Minn. LR 72.2(b)(1). Mr. Gozo did not object by the June 14th deadline, nor has he filed anything since Judge Wright issued the R&R.
In the absence of objections to an R&R, the Court reviews the R&R for clear error. Nur v. Olmsted County, 563 F.Supp.3d 946, 949 (D. Minn. 2021) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b) and Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam)). Having conducted the required review of the R&R and the record of these proceedings, the Court finds no error and accepts the R&R.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The R&R (Dkt. 9) is ACCEPTED;
2. The Second Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, for lack of jurisdiction, to the extent it seeks to bring claims against Defendants DHS, “Secretary Mayorkas,” the State of Minnesota and “Governor Walz”;
3. The Second Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, as duplicative, to the extent it seeks to bring claims against Defendant Eric Tollefson in his official capacity;
4. The Second Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, for failure to state a claim, to the extent it seeks to bring claims under (a) 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985 and 1986; and (b) the U.S. Constitution's Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments;
5. The Second Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, for failure to state a claim, to the extent it seeks to bring claims under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242; 42 U.S.C. § 1997d; and 34 U.S.C. § 30301;
6. The Second Amended Complaint's remaining state-law claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and
7. The IFP Application (Dkt. 2) and Second IFP Application (Dkt. 4) are DENIED AS MOOT.
Let Judgment Be Entered Accordingly.