Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Anderson v. Schweitzer

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA SOUTHWESTERN DIVISION


August 26, 2010

DAVID V. ANDERSON, PLAINTIFF,
v.
ALEX SCHWEITZER, SUPERINTENDENT OF THE NORTH DAKOTA STATE HOSPITAL, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, DEB ESSINGER, AN EMPLOYEE OF THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA, AND THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Ralph R. Erickson, Chief District Judge United States District Court For the reasons set

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff David V. Anderson submitted a pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court has received a Report and Recommendation from the Honorable Karen K. Klein, United States Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, recommending that:

1. The complaint against the State of North Dakota be dismissed with prejudice;

2. The complaint against Alex Schweitzer and Deb Essinger in their official capacities be dismissed with prejudice;

3. Plaintiff's claim that his constitutional rights were violated when defendants prohibited him from working be dismissed with prejudice; and

4. Plaintiff's claim that defendants denied him meaningful access to the courts be dismissed with prejudice.

No party has objected to the Report and Recommendation.

The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation, along with the entire file, and finds that the Magistrate Judge's position is correct. Accordingly, the Court hereby adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. For the reasons set forth herein, the complaint against the State of North Dakota IS DISMISSED with prejudice; the complaint against Alex Schweitzer and Deb Essinger in their official capacities IS DISMISSED with prejudice; Plaintiff's claim that his constitutional rights were violated when defendants prohibited him from working IS DISMISSED with prejudice; and Plaintiff's claim that defendants denied him meaningful access to the courts IS DISMISSED with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20100826

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.