Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Voigt v. Hamm

United States District Court, D. North Dakota

June 24, 2016

Clarence C. Voigt, Plaintiff,
v.
Adam Hamm, et. al., Defendants.

          Clarence Voigt, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          CHARLES S. MILLER, Jr., Magistrate Judge.

         The plaintiff, Clarence Kenneth Voigt ("Voigt"), initiated the above-entitled action pro se on June 8, 2016, with the submission of a complaint. For the reasons that follow, the undersigned recommends that the court dismiss Voigt's complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

         I. BACKGROUND

         Voigt's complaint is single-spaced and 16 pages in length. In his complaint, Voigt complains about the North Dakota Insurance Department and how its employees processed/investigated a complaint that he had lodged against his insurer, Combined Insurance Company ("CIC"), following its denial of his claim for insurance benefits. He then goes on to assert the following 14 claims:

Claim No. 1: Defendants collectively exhibited deliberate indifference to Voigt's state and federal rights through their actions.
Claim No. 2: Defendants collectively violated plaintiff's rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Claim No. 3: Defendant Heidi Tibor exhibited callous indifference to Voigt's civil rights through her actions.
Claim No. 4: Defendants collectively violated North Dakota Insurance laws.
Claim No. 5: Voigt suffered severe emotional distress on account of defendants' collective actions.
Claim No. 6: Defendant David Zimmerman violated Voigt's civil rights by "covering" for other defendants who "did not tell the truth."
Claim Nos. 7: Voigt suffered severe emotional distress as a result on account of defendants collective violation 18 U.S.C. § 245.
Claim No. 8: Defendants collectively violated 18 U.S.C. § 241.
Claim No. 9: Voigt suffered severe emotional distress as a result on account of defendants collective violation 18 U.S.C. § 245.
Claim No. 10: Defendants collectively refused to perform their duties in violation of N.D.C.C. § 32-12.1-106.
Claim No. 11: Defendants collectively Voigt from exercising his civil rights in violation of ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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