Sailee v. Minnesota Department of Human Services
Sailee v. Minnesota Department of Human Services
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Gustry Leshan Sailee, Plaintiff, ORDER ON REPORT v. AND RECOMMENDATION AND MOTION TO Minnesota Department of Human APPOINT COUNSEL Services; AMRTC; State Operated Civil No. 24-4345 ADM/TNL Services and Facilities; Government Entities; Mary F. Moriarty, Hennepin County Attorney Office; Celesta Demars; Mora Ross; Unknown Defendants, State Employees; Lori Skibbie, Judge; Peneholp, Examiner; Brad Cambell, Case Worker; Mike Hager, Attorney; and Deandre Willson, Attorney, Defendants. ______________________________________________________________________________ Gustry Leshan Sailee, pro se. ______________________________________________________________________________ This matter is before the undersigned United States District Judge for a ruling on Plaintiff Gustry Leshan Sailee’s (“Sailee”) Objection [Docket No. 7] to Magistrate Judge Tony N.
Leung’s December 11, 2024 Report and Recommendation [Docket No. 3] (“R&R”). In the R&R, Judge Leung recommends that Sailee’s Complaint [Docket No. 1] be dismissed without prejudice because the Complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, and because the Younger abstention doctrine1 applies to Sailee’s claims attacking the lawfulness of his ongoing civil-commitment proceedings in Minnesota state court.
In reviewing a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the district court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also D. Minn. L.R. 72.2(b). A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
After conducting a de novo review, and for the reasons stated in the well-reasoned R&R, the Court agrees that dismissal of Sailee’s Complaint is warranted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Sailee has also filed a Motion to Appoint Counsel [Docket No. 4]. The Motion is denied because dismissal of Sailee’s claims is proper.
Based upon the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff Gustry Leshan Sailee’s Objection [Docket No. 7] to Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung’s December 11, 2024 Report and Recommendation is OVERRULED; 2. The Report and Recommendation [Docket No. 3] is ADOPTED; 3. Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel [Docket No. 4] is DENIED; 4. This matter is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); and 5. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis [Docket No. 2] is DENIED.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
BY THE COURT:
Dated: January 17, 2025 s/Ann D. Montgomery ANN D. MONTGOMERY U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Gustry Leshan Sailee, Plaintiff, ORDER ON REPORT v. AND RECOMMENDATION AND MOTION TO Minnesota Department of Human APPOINT COUNSEL Services; AMRTC; State Operated Civil No. 24-4345 ADM/TNL Services and Facilities; Government Entities; Mary F. Moriarty, Hennepin County Attorney Office; Celesta Demars; Mora Ross; Unknown Defendants, State Employees; Lori Skibbie, Judge; Peneholp, Examiner; Brad Cambell, Case Worker; Mike Hager, Attorney; and Deandre Willson, Attorney, Defendants. ______________________________________________________________________________ Gustry Leshan Sailee, pro se. ______________________________________________________________________________ This matter is before the undersigned United States District Judge for a ruling on Plaintiff Gustry Leshan Sailee’s (“Sailee”) Objection [Docket No. 7] to Magistrate Judge Tony N.
Leung’s December 11, 2024 Report and Recommendation [Docket No. 3] (“R&R”). In the R&R, Judge Leung recommends that Sailee’s Complaint [Docket No. 1] be dismissed without prejudice because the Complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, and because the Younger abstention doctrine1 applies to Sailee’s claims attacking the lawfulness of his ongoing civil-commitment proceedings in Minnesota state court.
In reviewing a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the district court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also D. Minn. L.R. 72.2(b). A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
After conducting a de novo review, and for the reasons stated in the well-reasoned R&R, the Court agrees that dismissal of Sailee’s Complaint is warranted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Sailee has also filed a Motion to Appoint Counsel [Docket No. 4]. The Motion is denied because dismissal of Sailee’s claims is proper.
Based upon the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff Gustry Leshan Sailee’s Objection [Docket No. 7] to Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung’s December 11, 2024 Report and Recommendation is OVERRULED; 2. The Report and Recommendation [Docket No. 3] is ADOPTED; 3. Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel [Docket No. 4] is DENIED; 4. This matter is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); and 5. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis [Docket No. 2] is DENIED.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
BY THE COURT:
Dated: January 17, 2025 s/Ann D. Montgomery ANN D. MONTGOMERY U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.