Opinion
Case No. 19-cv-0446 (WMW/KMM)
02-18-2020
Mark Dunker, Plaintiff, v. Paul Schnell et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on the December 4, 2019 Report and Recommendation (R&R) of United States Magistrate Judge Katherine M. Menendez. (Dkt. 28.) The R&R recommends granting Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff Mark Dunker's amended complaint. Dunker filed timely objections.
Although Dunker objects to the R&R's recommendations, he makes no specific objection to any aspect of the R&R's factual findings or legal analysis. In the absence of specific objections, de novo review is not required. See Montgomery v. Compass Airlines, LLC, 98 F. Supp. 3d 1012, 1017 (D. Minn. 2015) (observing that objections to an R&R that "are not specific but merely repeat arguments presented to and considered by a magistrate judge are not entitled to de novo review"). Under such circumstances, a district court reviews an R&R for clear error. Id.
Dunker does not specifically object to the R&R's analysis of his claims. Instead, Dunker repeats certain arguments that he presented to the magistrate judge and advances other arguments that are not legally germane to the R&R's analysis of his claims. Although Dunker recites the applicable legal standard for some of his contentions, he provides no legal or factual analysis that is responsive to the R&R. Nor does Dunker identify any fact or legal authority that the R&R omits, overlooks, or mischaracterizes. Even when liberally construed, Dunker's objections fail to address the R&R's legal analysis. Consequently, the Court overrules Dunker's objections and reviews the R&R for clear error. See Montgomery, 98 F. Supp. 3d at 1017.
A finding is "clearly erroneous" when the reviewing court "is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Edeh v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., 748 F. Supp. 2d 1030, 1043 (D. Minn. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). Having carefully reviewed the R&R and considered each of Dunker's objections, the Court identifies no clear error in the magistrate judge's reasoning or recommended resolution of Dunker's claims. Accordingly, the Court adopts the R&R in its entirety.
Based on the foregoing analysis, the R&R, and all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff Mark Dunker's objections to the December 4, 2019 R&R, (Dkt. 29), are OVERRULED.
2. The December 4, 2019 R&R, (Dkt. 28), is ADOPTED.
3. Defendants' motion to dismiss, (Dkt. 14), is GRANTED.
4. This matter is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. Dated: February 18, 2020
s/Wilhelmina M. Wright
Wilhelmina M. Wright
United States District Judge