Brandon v. Sherburne County Sheriff
U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota
Brandon v. Sherburne County Sheriff
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Morris Lee Brandon, III, Case No. 24-CV-778 (JMB/DLM)
Plaintiff,
v. ORDER ON REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
Sherburne County Sheriff, Joel Brott and
Deputies, and Correctional Officers, in
their individual and official capacities,
Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Morris Lee Brandon III’s Objections
(Doc. Nos. 12, 13) to the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of United States Magistrate
Judge Douglas L. Micko filed April 17, 2024. (Doc. No. 10.) The R&R recommends
dismissing Brandon’s Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 8) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)
for failure to state a claim and, in turn, denying Brandon’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (id.
at 5) and application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP application) (Doc. No. 2) as moot.
(See Doc. No. 10.) For the following reasons, the Court overrules Brandon’s Objections
and adopts the R&R.
The Court reviews the challenged portions of an R&R under a de novo standard of
review. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); D. Minn. L.R. 72.2(b)(3). However, the Court need only review for clear error any aspect of an R&R to which no specific objection is made. See Grinder v. Gammon,73 F.3d 793, 795
(8th Cir. 1996). Because Brandon is self-represented, his Objections are entitled to liberal construction. Erickson v. Pardus,551 U.S. 89, 94
(2007).
The Court closely reviewed Brandon’s filings (Doc. Nos. 12, 13) to discern the
nature of his objections to the R&R. In his filings, Brandon takes issue with the Magistrate
Judge’s determination that he has failed to state a claim. At the same time, he concedes
that he has not stated a claim because he cannot access video footage that would
purportedly support his section 1983 claim. (See Doc. Nos. 12, 13.) More generally,
Brandon disagrees with Magistrate Judge’s use of certain language in the R&R, reasserts
allegations made in his Amended Complaint, and restates the constitutional protections at
issue; however, he fails to argue, let alone show, that he has alleged sufficient facts to
support his claim. (See Doc. Nos. 12, 13.) In addition, Brandon recites legal rules relating
to the summary judgment standard and qualified immunity defense. These rule statements
are procedurally and substantively unrelated to Brandon’s section 1983 claim, as well as
the analysis the Magistrate Judge employs in support of his recommendation to dismiss
Brandon’s Amended Complaint. (See Doc. Nos. 12, 13.) Having conducted a de novo
review, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that Brandon’s Amended
Complaint fails to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff Morris Lee Brandon, III’s Objections to the R&R (Doc. Nos. 12,
13) are OVERRULED.
2. The R&R (Doc. No. 10) is ADOPTED.
a. Brandon’s Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 8) is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
b. Brandon’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. No. 8 at 5) is DENIED as
moot.
c. Brandon’s IFP application (Doc. No. 2) is DENIED as moot.
3. Brandon is ordered to pay the unpaid balance of this action’s statutory filing
fee—$338.85—in the manner prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2), and the
Clerk of Court is required to provide notice of this requirement to the
authorities at the institution where he is confined.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: May 24, 2024 /s/ Jeffrey M. Bryan
Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan
United States District Court Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Morris Lee Brandon, III, Case No. 24-CV-778 (JMB/DLM)
Plaintiff,
v. ORDER ON REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
Sherburne County Sheriff, Joel Brott and
Deputies, and Correctional Officers, in
their individual and official capacities,
Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Morris Lee Brandon III’s Objections
(Doc. Nos. 12, 13) to the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of United States Magistrate
Judge Douglas L. Micko filed April 17, 2024. (Doc. No. 10.) The R&R recommends
dismissing Brandon’s Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 8) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)
for failure to state a claim and, in turn, denying Brandon’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (id.
at 5) and application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP application) (Doc. No. 2) as moot.
(See Doc. No. 10.) For the following reasons, the Court overrules Brandon’s Objections
and adopts the R&R.
The Court reviews the challenged portions of an R&R under a de novo standard of
review. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); D. Minn. L.R. 72.2(b)(3). However, the Court need only review for clear error any aspect of an R&R to which no specific objection is made. See Grinder v. Gammon,73 F.3d 793, 795
(8th Cir. 1996). Because Brandon is self-represented, his Objections are entitled to liberal construction. Erickson v. Pardus,551 U.S. 89, 94
(2007).
The Court closely reviewed Brandon’s filings (Doc. Nos. 12, 13) to discern the
nature of his objections to the R&R. In his filings, Brandon takes issue with the Magistrate
Judge’s determination that he has failed to state a claim. At the same time, he concedes
that he has not stated a claim because he cannot access video footage that would
purportedly support his section 1983 claim. (See Doc. Nos. 12, 13.) More generally,
Brandon disagrees with Magistrate Judge’s use of certain language in the R&R, reasserts
allegations made in his Amended Complaint, and restates the constitutional protections at
issue; however, he fails to argue, let alone show, that he has alleged sufficient facts to
support his claim. (See Doc. Nos. 12, 13.) In addition, Brandon recites legal rules relating
to the summary judgment standard and qualified immunity defense. These rule statements
are procedurally and substantively unrelated to Brandon’s section 1983 claim, as well as
the analysis the Magistrate Judge employs in support of his recommendation to dismiss
Brandon’s Amended Complaint. (See Doc. Nos. 12, 13.) Having conducted a de novo
review, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that Brandon’s Amended
Complaint fails to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff Morris Lee Brandon, III’s Objections to the R&R (Doc. Nos. 12,
13) are OVERRULED.
2. The R&R (Doc. No. 10) is ADOPTED.
a. Brandon’s Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 8) is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
b. Brandon’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. No. 8 at 5) is DENIED as
moot.
c. Brandon’s IFP application (Doc. No. 2) is DENIED as moot.
3. Brandon is ordered to pay the unpaid balance of this action’s statutory filing
fee—$338.85—in the manner prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2), and the
Clerk of Court is required to provide notice of this requirement to the
authorities at the institution where he is confined.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: May 24, 2024 /s/ Jeffrey M. Bryan
Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan
United States District Court Reference
- Status
- Unknown