Whipple v. Johnston
- Jerry Blackwell
- 0:22-cv-02588
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Whipple v. Johnston, Judge Blackwell accepted the recommendation, granted Johnston’s dismissal motion, and dismissed Whipple’s action with prejudice over inadequate Xbox-related allegations.
The dismissal ended Michael R. Whipple’s action against Nancy Johnston. The order granted Johnston’s motion to dismiss with prejudice, meaning the action was dismissed on a basis that bars refiling the dismissed action.
What happened
Michael R. Whipple, who represented himself, sued Nancy Johnston, identified as the CEO of MSOP, over the removal of his Xbox after his status changed from Tier 3 to Tier 2. A magistrate judge recommended dismissing the case with prejudice.
Whipple objected, arguing that he had provided enough information to support a constitutional claim involving the Xbox. The court concluded that he had not adequately alleged why the status change was wrongful or provided specific facts supporting his claims that the Xbox seizure and the status change violated his rights.
Judge Blackwell overruled Whipple’s objections, accepted the magistrate judge’s recommendation, granted Johnston’s motion to dismiss with prejudice, vacated the earlier order and judgment, and dismissed the action with prejudice.
The detailed version
- Whipple v. Johnston · No. 0:22-cv-02588
- Jerry W. Blackwell
- Sept. 12, 2023
Background
Michael R. Whipple sued Nancy Johnston, identified in the caption as the CEO of MSOP, in both her individual and official capacities. Whipple represented himself. A magistrate judge, John F. Docherty, issued a June 14, 2023 Report and Recommendation recommending that the case be dismissed with prejudice.
The dispute involved Whipple’s removal from Tier 3 status to Tier 2 status and the resulting seizure of his Xbox. Whipple asserted constitutional claims related to those events.
Objections and Analysis
Whipple objected to the recommendation. He argued that his complaint included enough information to put Johnston on notice of his constitutional claim concerning the Xbox.
The court explained that federal complaints must include specific factual allegations that plausibly support a legal claim. It agreed with the magistrate judge that Whipple had not adequately alleged why the change from Tier 3 to Tier 2 was wrongful. The court also found that Whipple had not provided specific facts supporting his due-process claims. The court noted the recommendation’s conclusions that Whipple could not claim a constitutionally protected property interest in the Xbox while on Tier 2 and lacked a protected liberty interest in his tier status.
The court reviewed the portions of the recommendation to which Whipple objected under a fresh review standard. It reviewed the remaining portions for clear error and found no error or legal defect. It therefore accepted the recommendation in its entirety.
Ruling
Judge Jerry W. Blackwell ordered the following:
- The earlier order and judgment at Docket Nos. 30 and 31 were vacated.
- Whipple’s objections were overruled.
- The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation was accepted.
- Johnston’s motion to dismiss with prejudice was granted.
- The action was dismissed with prejudice, and judgment was ordered to be entered.
The opinion’s caption identifies the plaintiff as “Michael R. Whipple,” while the second item of the order refers to “Mark R. Whipple.”
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.