Opinion
Misc. No. 02-21 (JRT/FLN).
July 2, 2003.
Eugene H. Mathison, pro se.
Judy R. Mathison, pro se.
Sarah Crippen Madison, Best Flanagan, Minneapolis, MN, Attorney for Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioners commenced this action by filing a pleading seeking discovery pursuant to Rule 27 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This matter is now before the Court on petitioner Eugene Mathison's ("Mathison") objections to the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Franklin L. Noel dated October 25, 2002. The Court has conducted a de novo review of Mathison's objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) and D. Minn. LR 72.1(c)(2). For the reasons discussed below, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and grants respondent's motion to dismiss.
Mathison claimed that he planned to sue respondent Corrections Corporation of America ("CCA") under 28 U.S.C. § 1983. Under Rule 27(a), a person may obtain certain discovery when he has reason to believe that he will become a party to a lawsuit, but he is unable to bring the action in any court in the United States. Shore v. Acands, Inc., 644 F.2d 386, 388-89 (5th Cir. 1981). See Fed.R.Civ.P. 27(a). The Magistrate Judge determined that Mathison could not meet this standard because he had already filed suit in this District against CCA. The Magistrate Judge accordingly recommended that CCA's motion to dismiss be granted.
Mathison has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation, but in that document he states that he does not object to the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that his petition be dismissed. (Obj. at 1.) Accordingly, the Court will adopt the Report and Recommendation. This matter would not ordinarily have come before this Court in the absence of an objection to the Magistrate Judge's conclusion. However, Mathison's submission goes on to object to a footnote in the Report and Recommendation in which the Magistrate Judge speculates on matters relating to petitioners' active § 1983 case, now before another judge of this District. ( See R R at 4 n. 2.) This footnote, however, is irrelevant to these proceedings. The only legally significant portion of the Report and Recommendation was the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that CCA's motion to dismiss should be granted and that Mathison's application under Rule 27(a) should be denied. Mathison has not objected to these conclusions, so this Court's job is done. The Report and Recommendation will be adopted. Mathison's other concerns about comments by the Magistrate Judge are no more relevant to these proceedings than the comments themselves. The Court therefore declines to address either of them.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, all the records, files, and proceedings herein, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [Docket No. 11]. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Respondent's motion to dismiss [Docket No. 2] is GRANTED.
2. Petitioners' application for relief under Rule 27(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [Docket No. 1] is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.