DONOVAN W. FRANK, District Judge.
The Court issues this Order amending its earlier order (Doc. No. 84) to clarify that the order relates to only the claims brought against Defendant Brian Frank. This matter is before the Court upon pro se Plaintiff Trinidad Jesus Garcia's objections (Doc. No. 79) to Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson's November 17, 2017 Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 76) insofar as it recommends that Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings be granted. Defendant Jail Administrator Brian Frank filed a response to Plaintiff's objections on December 12, 2017. (Doc. No. 81.)
The Court has conducted a de novo review of the record, including a review of the arguments and submissions of counsel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 72.2(b). The factual background for the above-entitled matter is clearly and precisely set forth in the Report and Recommendation and is incorporated by reference for purposes of Plaintiff's objections.
Plaintiff brought his suit after he slipped and fell in a shower at Sherburne County Jail. Plaintiff brought claims under state law and for violation of the Eighth Amendment. In the Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Thorson recommended that the Court dismiss Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim and decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state-law claims. In his objection, Garcia merely disagrees with the Magistrate Judge's recommendations and requests that his claims be dismissed without prejudice.
Based upon the de novo review of the record and all of the arguments and submissions of the parties and the Court being otherwise duly advised in the premises, the Court hereby enters the following:
1. Plaintiff Trinidad Jesus Garcia's pro se objections (Doc. No. [79]) to Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson's November 17, 2017 Report and Recommendation are
2. Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson's November 17, 2017 Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. [76]) is
3. Defendant Brian Frank's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. No. [44]) is
4. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Doc. No. [43]) is dismissed as follows:
5. The prior Judgment (Doc. No. [85]) is