UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                           
                    DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA                               


Anthony E. Ntamere,                                                     
                                  Case No. 22-cv-02682 (KMM/JFD)        
              Plaintiff,                                                

v.                                          ORDER                       

Amerihealth Administrators Inc., et. al,                                

               Defendants.                                              


   The above matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation 
(R&R) of United States Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty, dated February 9, 2023.  [ECF 
No. 8.]  Mr. Ntamere has filed objections.  [ECF No. 10.]  For the reasons set forth below, 
the Court accepts the R&R, dismisses Mr. Ntamere’s claims against the United States 
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and Charlotte Czarnecki, EEOC 
Investigator,  and  grants  Mr.  Ntamere’s  request  to  amend  his  complaint  to  add  the 
appropriate  individuals  in  place  of  the  Minnesota  Department  of  Human  Rights 
(“MDHR”).                                                                 
   After an R&R is issued, a party may “serve and file specific written objections to 
the proposed findings and recommendations.”  Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).  The objections 
must outline the specific "portions of the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation to 
which objections are made and provide a basis for those objections."  United States  
v. Miller, Crim. No. 20-232(19) (JRT/BRT), 

, at *2 (D. Minn. Aug. 24, 
2022) (quoting Mayer v. Walvatne, No. 07-1958, 

, at *2 (D. Minn. Sept. 
28, 2008)).  The Court reviews de novo those portions of the R&R to which specific 
objections are made, and it “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings 

or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”  See 

(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. 
Civ. P. 72(b)(3); D. Minn. LR 72.2(b)(3).                                 
I.   Background                                                         
   The events in this lawsuit took place while Mr. Ntamere was an employee at 
AmeriHealth Administrators, Inc. (“AHA”), a subsidiary of Independence Blue Cross, 
LLC (“IBC”).  [Am. Compl., ECF No. 4.]  According to Mr. Ntamere, when he was at a 

three-day AHA-sponsored training in July 2019, one of the trainers used a racist slur, which 
Mr. Ntamere recorded.  [Id. ¶ 57.]  After the training, Mr. Ntamere filed a complaint with 
IBC’s human resources, but Michelle Schumacher, the head of human resources, ultimately 
closed the complaint and placed a probation notice in Mr. Ntamere’s employee file for 
recording the training in violation of company policies.  [Id.]  After this probation notice 

was placed in Mr. Ntamere’s employee file, Mr. Ntamere sought to file a charge with the 
EEOC.  [Id. at 12.]  During the process of filing the charge, Mr. Ntamere participated in a 
plaintiff interview meeting with EEOC Investigator Charlotte Czarnecki.  [Id.]  
   Mr. Ntamere disagrees with the R&R’s factual findings regarding what happened 
next.  According to Mr. Ntamere, Ms. Czarnecki filled out the charge and erroneously sent 

it to  the  Pennsylvania  Human  Relations  Commission  (“PHRC”).1  [Objections,  ECF  
No. 10 at 2.]  Regardless of who filed the charge, Mr. Ntamere alleges that the charge was 

   1 The R&R states that Mr. Ntamere alleges that Czarnecki erroneously directed him 
to file a cross-complaint with the PHRC. [R&R, ECF No. 8 at 3.]           
erroneously filed.  The EEOC  ultimately closed its  file pertaining to Mr. Ntamere’s 
allegations,  determining  that  it  could  not  conclude—based  on  the  information  it  

obtained—that federal law had been violated.  [ECF No. 4-2 at 9.]  Mr. Ntamere then 
attempted to file a complaint with the MDHR about the use of the racial slur; however, 
because the initial complaint was filed with the PHRC, he was told he would need to 
contact the PHRC for assistance.  [Am. Compl. at ¶¶ 83–84.]               
   Mr.  Ntamere  explains  that  in  June  2020,  IBC’s  CEO  sent  out  an  email 
acknowledging racism within the company and the company’s commitment to addressing 

it.  [Id. at ¶ 91.]  Given his experience at the earlier workshop, Mr. Ntamere found the email 
insincere, and he expressed this opinion on the company’s intranet.  [Id.]  In response,  
Ms. Schumacher placed a second probation notice in Mr. Ntamere’s employee file for 
failing to comply with the directive in his 2019 probation notice and for violating company 
policy.  [Id. at ¶ 95.]  Mr. Ntamere then made additional comments critical of IBC to other 

IBC employees on IBC forums.  [Id. at ¶ 96]  Mr. Ntamere’s employment was terminated 
on June 24, 2020.  [Id. at ¶ 97.]                                         
   Nearly a year later, Mr. Ntamere filed a complaint with the MDHR, claiming his 
termination from IBC was the result of race-based discrimination.  [MDHR Charge, ECF 
No. 4-1.]  The MDHR investigated and determined that there was no probable cause to 

believe that discrimination occurred.  [Id.]  Mr. Ntamere requested reconsideration, but the 
MDHR  affirmed  its  earlier  ruling.    In  doing  so,  the  MDHR  also  explained  that  
Mr. Ntamere’s claims that he had been placed on probation in August 2019 for recording 
the meeting in which he claims to have been subjected to a racial slur may have constituted 
violations of the Minnesota Human Rights Act, but those claims were not properly before 
the MDHR because Mr. Ntamere had failed to assert them in a timely manner.  [MDHR 

Reconsideration, ECF No. 4-4 at 5.]                                       
   Mr. Ntamere makes several claims in this case, but the R&R focuses on Mr. 
Ntamere’s allegation that Defendants MDHR, AHA, and Ms. Czarnecki deprived him of 
due process by cross-filing his 2019 EEOC complaint with the PHRC instead of the MDHR 
in violation of 

.  [R&R at 5–6.]  The R&R recommends that Mr. Ntamere’s 
claims against the MDHR, the EEOC, and Charlotte Czarnecki be dismissed because  

 requires a plaintiff to allege a violation of a constitutional right committed 
by a person acting under color of state law, and here, two of the agencies or persons acted 
under federal law, and the remaining party MDHR is not a “person” within the meaning  
of § 1983.  [Id.]                                                         
II.  Analysis                                                           

   Mr. Ntamere argues that Ms. Czarnecki and the EEOC should not be dismissed and 
requests the Court to allow him to make several revisions to his Amended Complaint.  
Based on the Court’s careful review, Mr. Ntamere’s objections regarding the dismissal of 
Ms. Czarnecki and the EEOC are overruled.  The Court will allow Mr. Ntamere to make 
his proposed amendments.                                                  

A. Ms. Czarnecki and the EEOC                                           
   Mr. Ntamere argues that although the Supreme Court has stated that new Bivens 
actions are disfavored, the Supreme Court has not reversed Bivens, and it should apply in 
this case.2  While true that Bivens has not been overruled, it does not permit lawsuits against 
federal agencies such as the EEOC.  See FDIC v. Meyer, 

 (1994) 

(declining to extend Bivens to federal agencies).  Moreover, there is no established Bivens 
cause  of  action  against  an  EEOC  official  who  allegedly  cross-filed  an  employment 
discrimination claim in the wrong district.  The Court finds that the R&R did not err in 
concluding that Mr. Ntamere cannot pursue a Bivens cause of action for the EEOC and Ms. 
Czarnecki’s alleged conduct in this case.3                                

B. The MDHR                                                             
   Mr. Ntamere does not object to the R&R’s finding that the MDHR should be 
dismissed as a party because it is not a “person” within the meaning of § 1983.  Instead, 
Mr. Ntamere requests the Court allow him to amend his complaint to add the following 
state and MDHR officials in their official capacity as defendants: Attorney General Keith 
Ellison,  MDHR  commissioner  Rebecca  Lucero,  and  MDHR  Lead  Investigator  Tom 





   2 Egbert v. Boule, 

 (2022) (“[R]ecognizing a cause of action 
under Bivens is a disfavored judicial activity.”) (quotation omitted); Bivens v. Six Unknown 
Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 

, 395–97 (1971) (establishing that 
a “Bivens” action may be brought against federal officials in their individual capacity for 
their constitutional torts).                                              
   3 Mr. Ntamere did not initially bring a Bivens action against Ms. Czarnecki and the 
EEOC. Instead, he brought his claim under 

, which the R&R found was 
not supported by law.  The R&R merely referenced Bivens in a footnote to explain why his 
case would not be supported by the federal equivalent to § 1983. [R&R, P. 5 fn. 3.]  
Mr. Ntamere does not challenge the R&R’s finding that 

 does not support 
a claim against the Ms. Czarnecki and the EEOC.                           
Bernette.  He also requests the Court allow him to remove MDHR as a defendant and 
correct typos in his Amended Complaint. The Court grants Mr. Ntamere’s request. 4 

   Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:                              
   1.  The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 8] is ACCEPTED.           
   2.  Defendant’s  Objections  [ECF  No. 10]  are  OVERRULED  in  part  and 
     GRANTED in part.                                                   
   3.  Mr. Ntamere’s claims against Ms. Czarnecki and the EEOC are DISMISSED 
     without prejudice.                                                 

   4.  Mr. Ntamere may amend his Amended Complaint within 30 days of this Order.  
     Mr. Ntamere may add Attorney General Keith Ellison, MDHR commissioner 
     Rebecca Lucero, and MDHR Lead Investigator Tom Bernette to his Amended 
     Complaint, remove MDHR as a defendant, and correct typos in his Amended 
     Complaint.  Mr. Ntamere may not make other revisions.              


   Date: November 14, 2023                                              
                                   s/Katherine Menendez                 
                                 Katherine Menendez                     
                                 United States District Judge           





   4 The defendants do not appear to oppose Mr. Ntamere’s request to amend his 
Complaint.  Therefore, the Court will allow it.                           

                 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                           
                    DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA                               


Anthony E. Ntamere,                                                     
                                  Case No. 22-cv-02682 (KMM/JFD)        
              Plaintiff,                                                

v.                                          ORDER                       

Amerihealth Administrators Inc., et. al,                                

               Defendants.                                              


   The above matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation 
(R&R) of United States Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty, dated February 9, 2023.  [ECF 
No. 8.]  Mr. Ntamere has filed objections.  [ECF No. 10.]  For the reasons set forth below, 
the Court accepts the R&R, dismisses Mr. Ntamere’s claims against the United States 
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and Charlotte Czarnecki, EEOC 
Investigator,  and  grants  Mr.  Ntamere’s  request  to  amend  his  complaint  to  add  the 
appropriate  individuals  in  place  of  the  Minnesota  Department  of  Human  Rights 
(“MDHR”).                                                                 
   After an R&R is issued, a party may “serve and file specific written objections to 
the proposed findings and recommendations.”  Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).  The objections 
must outline the specific "portions of the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation to 
which objections are made and provide a basis for those objections."  United States  
v. Miller, Crim. No. 20-232(19) (JRT/BRT), 

, at *2 (D. Minn. Aug. 24, 
2022) (quoting Mayer v. Walvatne, No. 07-1958, 

, at *2 (D. Minn. Sept. 
28, 2008)).  The Court reviews de novo those portions of the R&R to which specific 
objections are made, and it “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings 

or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”  See 

(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. 
Civ. P. 72(b)(3); D. Minn. LR 72.2(b)(3).                                 
I.   Background                                                         
   The events in this lawsuit took place while Mr. Ntamere was an employee at 
AmeriHealth Administrators, Inc. (“AHA”), a subsidiary of Independence Blue Cross, 
LLC (“IBC”).  [Am. Compl., ECF No. 4.]  According to Mr. Ntamere, when he was at a 

three-day AHA-sponsored training in July 2019, one of the trainers used a racist slur, which 
Mr. Ntamere recorded.  [Id. ¶ 57.]  After the training, Mr. Ntamere filed a complaint with 
IBC’s human resources, but Michelle Schumacher, the head of human resources, ultimately 
closed the complaint and placed a probation notice in Mr. Ntamere’s employee file for 
recording the training in violation of company policies.  [Id.]  After this probation notice 

was placed in Mr. Ntamere’s employee file, Mr. Ntamere sought to file a charge with the 
EEOC.  [Id. at 12.]  During the process of filing the charge, Mr. Ntamere participated in a 
plaintiff interview meeting with EEOC Investigator Charlotte Czarnecki.  [Id.]  
   Mr. Ntamere disagrees with the R&R’s factual findings regarding what happened 
next.  According to Mr. Ntamere, Ms. Czarnecki filled out the charge and erroneously sent 

it to  the  Pennsylvania  Human  Relations  Commission  (“PHRC”).1  [Objections,  ECF  
No. 10 at 2.]  Regardless of who filed the charge, Mr. Ntamere alleges that the charge was 

   1 The R&R states that Mr. Ntamere alleges that Czarnecki erroneously directed him 
to file a cross-complaint with the PHRC. [R&R, ECF No. 8 at 3.]           
erroneously filed.  The EEOC  ultimately closed its  file pertaining to Mr. Ntamere’s 
allegations,  determining  that  it  could  not  conclude—based  on  the  information  it  

obtained—that federal law had been violated.  [ECF No. 4-2 at 9.]  Mr. Ntamere then 
attempted to file a complaint with the MDHR about the use of the racial slur; however, 
because the initial complaint was filed with the PHRC, he was told he would need to 
contact the PHRC for assistance.  [Am. Compl. at ¶¶ 83–84.]               
   Mr.  Ntamere  explains  that  in  June  2020,  IBC’s  CEO  sent  out  an  email 
acknowledging racism within the company and the company’s commitment to addressing 

it.  [Id. at ¶ 91.]  Given his experience at the earlier workshop, Mr. Ntamere found the email 
insincere, and he expressed this opinion on the company’s intranet.  [Id.]  In response,  
Ms. Schumacher placed a second probation notice in Mr. Ntamere’s employee file for 
failing to comply with the directive in his 2019 probation notice and for violating company 
policy.  [Id. at ¶ 95.]  Mr. Ntamere then made additional comments critical of IBC to other 

IBC employees on IBC forums.  [Id. at ¶ 96]  Mr. Ntamere’s employment was terminated 
on June 24, 2020.  [Id. at ¶ 97.]                                         
   Nearly a year later, Mr. Ntamere filed a complaint with the MDHR, claiming his 
termination from IBC was the result of race-based discrimination.  [MDHR Charge, ECF 
No. 4-1.]  The MDHR investigated and determined that there was no probable cause to 

believe that discrimination occurred.  [Id.]  Mr. Ntamere requested reconsideration, but the 
MDHR  affirmed  its  earlier  ruling.    In  doing  so,  the  MDHR  also  explained  that  
Mr. Ntamere’s claims that he had been placed on probation in August 2019 for recording 
the meeting in which he claims to have been subjected to a racial slur may have constituted 
violations of the Minnesota Human Rights Act, but those claims were not properly before 
the MDHR because Mr. Ntamere had failed to assert them in a timely manner.  [MDHR 

Reconsideration, ECF No. 4-4 at 5.]                                       
   Mr. Ntamere makes several claims in this case, but the R&R focuses on Mr. 
Ntamere’s allegation that Defendants MDHR, AHA, and Ms. Czarnecki deprived him of 
due process by cross-filing his 2019 EEOC complaint with the PHRC instead of the MDHR 
in violation of 

.  [R&R at 5–6.]  The R&R recommends that Mr. Ntamere’s 
claims against the MDHR, the EEOC, and Charlotte Czarnecki be dismissed because  

 requires a plaintiff to allege a violation of a constitutional right committed 
by a person acting under color of state law, and here, two of the agencies or persons acted 
under federal law, and the remaining party MDHR is not a “person” within the meaning  
of § 1983.  [Id.]                                                         
II.  Analysis                                                           

   Mr. Ntamere argues that Ms. Czarnecki and the EEOC should not be dismissed and 
requests the Court to allow him to make several revisions to his Amended Complaint.  
Based on the Court’s careful review, Mr. Ntamere’s objections regarding the dismissal of 
Ms. Czarnecki and the EEOC are overruled.  The Court will allow Mr. Ntamere to make 
his proposed amendments.                                                  

A. Ms. Czarnecki and the EEOC                                           
   Mr. Ntamere argues that although the Supreme Court has stated that new Bivens 
actions are disfavored, the Supreme Court has not reversed Bivens, and it should apply in 
this case.2  While true that Bivens has not been overruled, it does not permit lawsuits against 
federal agencies such as the EEOC.  See FDIC v. Meyer, 

 (1994) 

(declining to extend Bivens to federal agencies).  Moreover, there is no established Bivens 
cause  of  action  against  an  EEOC  official  who  allegedly  cross-filed  an  employment 
discrimination claim in the wrong district.  The Court finds that the R&R did not err in 
concluding that Mr. Ntamere cannot pursue a Bivens cause of action for the EEOC and Ms. 
Czarnecki’s alleged conduct in this case.3                                

B. The MDHR                                                             
   Mr. Ntamere does not object to the R&R’s finding that the MDHR should be 
dismissed as a party because it is not a “person” within the meaning of § 1983.  Instead, 
Mr. Ntamere requests the Court allow him to amend his complaint to add the following 
state and MDHR officials in their official capacity as defendants: Attorney General Keith 
Ellison,  MDHR  commissioner  Rebecca  Lucero,  and  MDHR  Lead  Investigator  Tom 





   2 Egbert v. Boule, 

 (2022) (“[R]ecognizing a cause of action 
under Bivens is a disfavored judicial activity.”) (quotation omitted); Bivens v. Six Unknown 
Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 

, 395–97 (1971) (establishing that 
a “Bivens” action may be brought against federal officials in their individual capacity for 
their constitutional torts).                                              
   3 Mr. Ntamere did not initially bring a Bivens action against Ms. Czarnecki and the 
EEOC. Instead, he brought his claim under 

, which the R&R found was 
not supported by law.  The R&R merely referenced Bivens in a footnote to explain why his 
case would not be supported by the federal equivalent to § 1983. [R&R, P. 5 fn. 3.]  
Mr. Ntamere does not challenge the R&R’s finding that 

 does not support 
a claim against the Ms. Czarnecki and the EEOC.                           
Bernette.  He also requests the Court allow him to remove MDHR as a defendant and 
correct typos in his Amended Complaint. The Court grants Mr. Ntamere’s request. 4 

   Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:                              
   1.  The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 8] is ACCEPTED.           
   2.  Defendant’s  Objections  [ECF  No. 10]  are  OVERRULED  in  part  and 
     GRANTED in part.                                                   
   3.  Mr. Ntamere’s claims against Ms. Czarnecki and the EEOC are DISMISSED 
     without prejudice.                                                 

   4.  Mr. Ntamere may amend his Amended Complaint within 30 days of this Order.  
     Mr. Ntamere may add Attorney General Keith Ellison, MDHR commissioner 
     Rebecca Lucero, and MDHR Lead Investigator Tom Bernette to his Amended 
     Complaint, remove MDHR as a defendant, and correct typos in his Amended 
     Complaint.  Mr. Ntamere may not make other revisions.              


   Date: November 14, 2023                                              
                                   s/Katherine Menendez                 
                                 Katherine Menendez                     
                                 United States District Judge           





   4 The defendants do not appear to oppose Mr. Ntamere’s request to amend his 
Complaint.  Therefore, the Court will allow it.