Filed: Mar. 09, 2020
Latest Update: Mar. 09, 2020
Summary: ORDER KIMBERLY J. MUELLER , District Judge . Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by Local Rule 302(c)(21). On December 5, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days after service of the findings and recommendations. Plain
Summary: ORDER KIMBERLY J. MUELLER , District Judge . Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by Local Rule 302(c)(21). On December 5, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days after service of the findings and recommendations. Plaint..
More
ORDER
KIMBERLY J. MUELLER, District Judge.
Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by Local Rule 302(c)(21).
On December 5, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days after service of the findings and recommendations. Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis, particularly with respect to the statute of limitations bar, which is dispositive.
While there are insufficient facts in the Second Amended Complaint to determine the date on which plaintiff learned the union would not reimburse him for his legal expenses, the opposition to the Motion to Dismiss makes clear plaintiff sued the union in small claims court for reimbursement of the fees on September 26, 2018. The small claims court determined it did not have jurisdiction and dismissed for plaintiff to refile in federal court. Plaintiff sent a letter to his union representative again demanding reimbursement on April 12, 2018, which was denied. He filed this action on November 30, 2018. By the point at which plaintiff brought his initial small claims suit against the union, he knew it would not reimburse him. Even extending the point at which the action accrued to the rejection of his final demand letter on or about April 12, 2018, he still failed to meet the deadline to file.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations filed December 5, 2019 (ECF No. 30) are adopted in full;
2. Defendant's April 30, 2019 amended motion to dismiss (ECF No. 26) is granted;
3. The April 15, 2019 second amended complaint is dismissed without leave to amend; and
4. This action is closed.
