From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Perkins v. Anderson

United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Mar 20, 2007
Civil No. 07-1101 (PAM/FLN) (D. Minn. Mar. 20, 2007)

Opinion

Civil No. 07-1101 (PAM/FLN).

March 20, 2007


ORDER


This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Objections to the Report and Recommendation ("R R") of United States Magistrate Judge Franklin L. Noel, dated February 15, 2007. For the reasons that follow, the Court adopts the R R and overrules the Objections.

Plaintiff is serving a period of civil commitment at the Federal Medical Center in Rochester, Minnesota. He is suing the warden of the facility, Marty Anderson, for a purported violation of his civil rights under 28 U.S.C. § 1983. He contends that he "was forced to work detail despite the fact that he is a civilly committed detainee and not a prisoner. . . ." (Compl. at 3.)

The Magistrate Judge recommended summarily dismissing this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) because Plaintiff failed to state a cause of action on which relief may be granted. Specifically, Plaintiff alleged no historical facts showing that Defendant violated any federal constitutional right, and he failed to plead Defendant's personal involvement in any purported deprivation of rights. In his Objections to the R R, Plaintiff submits that he is being forced to work in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment and that he may not be required to work because he is merely a civil detainee.

The Court has conducted a de novo review of the record. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Minn. LR 72.2(b). Based on that review and Plaintiff's submission, the Court overrules the Objections and adopts the R R. As the Magistrate Judge determined, Plaintiff has not pled an actionable civil rights claim. The Complaint contains no allegations of Defendant's personal involvement in any wrongful conduct. In addition, the Complaint avers no specific constitutional wrong. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees (Docket No. 2) is DENIED;
2. The R R (Docket No. 3) is ADOPTED;
3. Plaintiff's Objections to the R R (Docket No. 4) are OVERRULED; and
4. This case is summarily DISMISSED under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.


Summaries of

Perkins v. Anderson

United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Mar 20, 2007
Civil No. 07-1101 (PAM/FLN) (D. Minn. Mar. 20, 2007)
Case details for

Perkins v. Anderson

Case Details

Full title:Victor Bernard Perkins, Plaintiff, v. Marty C. Anderson, Warden, Defendant

Court:United States District Court, D. Minnesota

Date published: Mar 20, 2007

Citations

Civil No. 07-1101 (PAM/FLN) (D. Minn. Mar. 20, 2007)