Opinion
Civil No. 13-640 (DWF/SER)
04-15-2014
Benjamin Mario Soto, Plaintiff, v. John Defendants 1-5, each individually and in their official capacities as officials and employees of the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Benjamin Mario Soto's ("Plaintiff") objections (Doc. Nos. 91, 95, 96, 102, 103, 104, 107, 108) to Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau's February 13, 2014 Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 90). Defendants responded to Plaintiff's objections on March 13, 2014. (Doc. No. 106.)
The Court has conducted a de novo review of the record, including a review of the arguments and submissions of the parties, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 72.2(b). The factual background for the above-entitled matter is clearly and precisely set forth in the Report and Recommendation and is incorporated by reference for purposes of Plaintiff's objections. Having carefully reviewed the record, the Court concludes that Plaintiff's objections offer no basis for departure from the Report and Recommendation.
Plaintiff appears to generally object to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation that this case be dismissed. (See generally Doc. Nos. 91, 95, 96, 102, 103, 104, 107, 108.) The undersigned agrees with the Magistrate Judge's determination regarding Eleventh Amendment immunity and finding that Plaintiff cannot establish a legitimate claim of entitlement to employment with the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension in which he has a protected property interest. See, e.g., Packett v. Stenberg, 969 F.2d 721, 724-35 (8th Cir. 1992). The Court has also reviewed Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 77.) Even assuming Plaintiff had properly filed (and leave had been granted to file) his Second Amended Complaint, the Complaint would not survive a motion to dismiss for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation. (See Doc. No. 90 at 22-24.) The Court thus concludes, as did Magistrate Judge Rau, that Plaintiff has failed to assert a plausible Section 1983 claim against Defendants. Consequently, the Court grants Defendants' motion and dismisses this matter.
Based upon the de novo review of the record and all of the arguments and submissions of the parties, and the Court being otherwise duly advised in the premises, the Court hereby enters the following:
ORDER
1. Plaintiff Benjamin Mario Soto's objections (Doc. Nos. [91], [95], [96], [102], [103], [104], [107], [108]) to Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau's February 13, 2014 Report and Recommendation are OVERRULED.
2. Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau's February 13, 2014 Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. [90]) is ADOPTED.
3. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. [72]) is GRANTED.
4. This case is DISMISSED.
5. Plaintiff's Motions to Request Proceeding With Only One Filing to the U.S. District Court District of Minnesota (Doc. Nos. [92], [97]) are DENIED AS MOOT.
6. Plaintiff's Counsel's Motion to Withdraw (Doc. No. [93]) is DENIED AS MOOT.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
__________
DONOVAN W. FRANK
United States District Judge