Opinion
Civ. No. 12-1898 (PAM/JJG)
08-28-2012
James Reedom, Plaintiff, v. Tom Vilsack, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of Magistrate Judge Jeanne J. Graham dated August 7, 2012. In the R&R, Magistrate Judge Graham recommends denying Plaintiff's application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing this action.
The Court must conduct a de novo review of all portions of a Magistrate Judge's R&R to which specific objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); D. Minn. L. R. 72.2(b). Plaintiff filed objections to the R&R, objecting to the recommendation that the Complaint be dismissed. For the reasons that follow, the Court ADOPTS the findings and conclusions in the R&R (Docket No. 4).
As the R&R noted, Plaintiff is apparently attempting to sue the current Secretary of the Department of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack, for discrimination he allegedly suffered at the hands of a Department field office in or around the year 2000. The Complaint utterly fails to set forth any cognizable legal theory under which Secretary Vilsack could be liable for such discrimination, however, and thus it is properly dismissed.
Plaintiff contends that the Office of Inspector General told him in 2000 that his discrimination complaint had merit. But even if this were the case, such a conclusion does not mean that Reedom has a cognizable legal claim more than 10 years later. Reedom has not explained any legal theory that supports his difficult-to-decipher allegations, and his Complaint must therefore be dismissed.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The R&R (Docket No. 4) is ADOPTED;
2. Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 2) is DENIED; and
3. This matter is summarily DISMISSED under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
_________________
Paul A. Magnuson
United States District Court Judge