Bakambia v. Bolin et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Marc Amouri Bakambia,
Plaintiff,
v.
William Bolin, Warden at MCF-Stillwater;
Stephen Craane, Medical Director for
Centurion; Louis Shicker, Medical Director
for Centurion; Andrew Brosted, Security
Officer at MCF-Stillwater; Stephen Watt,
Security Officer at MCF-Stillwater;
Olarinde, Associate Warden of Admin. at
MCF-Stillwater; Mercedes Salas, Captain at
MCF-Stillwater; Eric Anderson, Security
Sergeant at MCF-Stillwater; Morrin
William, Registered Nurse at
MCF-Stillwater; Ben Petersen, Registered
Nurse at MCF-Stillwater; Christine
Oberembt, Medical Record Staff at
MCF-STW; and Paul Schnell, Commissioner
of Corrections, each in their individual and
official capacities; Kathy Reid, in her
individual capacity; and Alexandria Hart, in
her official capacity,
Defendants.
File No. 25-cv-461 (ECT/EMB)
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION
Marc Amouri Bakambia, Lino Lakes, MN, pro se.
Kevin Jonassen, Minnesota Attorney General’s Office, St. Paul, MN, for Defendants
William Bolin, Stephen Watt, Olarinde, Mercedes Salas, Kathy Reid, Eric Anderson,
Morrin William, Ben Petersen, Christine Oberembt, and Paul Schnell.
Anthony J. Novak, Larson King, LLP, St. Paul, MN, and Julia A. Lines, The Kinetic Group,
Anoka, MN, for Defendants Stephen Craane and Louis Shicker.
CASE 0:25-cv-00461-ECT-EMB Doc. 131 Filed 03/09/26 Page 1 of 7

2
In a Report and Recommendation dated January 27, 2026, Magistrate Judge Elsa
M. Bullard recommended granting Defendants’ motions to dismiss [ECF Nos. 35, 78],
denying as moot Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction [ECF No. 23], and
dismissing the action. ECF No. 125. Because Plaintiff objected, ECF No. 130, the Report
and Recommendation has been reviewed de novo. 	28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Minn. LR
72.2(b)(3). The objections will be overruled, and the Report and Recommendation will be
accepted. This order presumes familiarity with the Report and Recommendation.
Objections to Non-dispositive and Procedural Matters
Mr. Bakambia objects that Judge Bullard abused her discretion by granting the
Centurion Defendants leave to file a substitute memorandum in support of their motion to
dismiss, after the Centurion Defendants mistakenly filed a memorandum for the wrong
case. ECF No. 130 at 2–3; see ECF No. 125 at 3 n.2; ECF No. 106 (order granting leave).
In Mr. Bakambia’s view, there should have been a hearing to address the substitution issue,
and the Centurion Defendants’ explanation should not have been credited. ECF No. 130
at 3–4. Mr. Bakambia also objects that the Report and Recommendation failed to address
his argument that the Centurion Defendants’ motion inappropriately joined the DOC
Defendants’ 	motion, 	and 	that 	the 	Centurion 	Defendants’ 	briefing 	inappropriately
incorporated the factual background of the DOC Defendants’ briefing. Id. at 5.
These are not objections to the “magistrate judge’s disposition” of a dispositive
motion that is entitled to de novo review. 	D. Minn. LR 72.2(b)(3). 	I construe these
objections as appeals of a non-dispositive pretrial order, which is reversible only if the
CASE 0:25-cv-00461-ECT-EMB Doc. 131 Filed 03/09/26 Page 2 of 7

3
order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 	United States v. Banks, No. 23-cr-307
(JRT/DTS), 2025 WL 2621753, at *8 (D. Minn. Sep. 11, 2025), appeal dismissed, 2025
WL 3483097 (Oct. 10, 2025). Given the “strong policy in favor of deciding a case on its
merits,” Chrysler Corp. v. Carey, 186 F.3d 1016, 1020 (8th Cir. 1999), Judge Bullard did
not err or abuse her discretion by granting leave to refile, denying Mr. Bakambia’s request
for a hearing, and crediting the Centurion Defendants’ explanation for the mistake. As to
the “joinder” issue, allowing defendants to join in their co-defendants’ motion falls within
a district court’s discretion. 	See United States ex rel. Ambrosecchia v. Paddock Lab’ys,
LLC, 855 F.3d 949, 956 (8th Cir. 2017). 	Joining these motions consolidated and
streamlined the issues, so it made good legal and practical sense; it was not an abuse of
discretion. 	And there is nothing inappropriate about one defendant relying on the facts
presented in a co-defendant’s brief.
Mr. Bakambia objects that Judge Bullard abused her discretion by failing to convert
the DOC Defendants’ motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. 	ECF
No. 130 at 6. “If, on a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) . . . , matters outside the pleadings are
presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion must be treated as one for summary
judgment under Rule 56.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d). Judge Bullard correctly concluded that
the DOC Defendants did not present matters outside the pleadings, ECF No. 125 at 27 n.12,
and Mr. Bakambia does not identify any extra-pleading material in the briefing or the
Report and Recommendation.
CASE 0:25-cv-00461-ECT-EMB Doc. 131 Filed 03/09/26 Page 3 of 7

4
Objections to Factual Findings and Legal Conclusions
Mr. 	Bakambia 	objects 	that 	the 	Report 	and 	Recommendation 	omitted 	and
misconstrued certain facts about Dr. Craane’s conduct with respect to a neurosurgery
follow-up. ECF No. 130 at 9. I have reviewed this material de novo and find no error in
Judge Bullard’s conclusions that the allegations “do not rise above a level of gross
negligence and therefore cannot sustain a claim for deliberate indifference.” ECF No. 125
at 37 (citing Est. of Rosenberg ex rel. Rosenberg v. Crandell, 56 F.3d 35, 37 (8th Cir.
1995)).
Mr. Bakambia objects that the Report and Recommendation failed to consider or
incorporate facts about DOC Defendants Reid and Oberembt, which he alleged in a
different lawsuit but did not present in this complaint. ECF No. 130 at 9. Those facts were
not within the scope of the Rule 12(b)(6) analysis, where a court accepts as true the
allegations in the complaint. See Gorog v. Best Buy Co., 760 F.3d 787, 792 (8th Cir. 2014).
Mr. Bakambia objects that the Report and Recommendation failed to recognize his
established rights to certain prescribed medications, and that Dr. Craane violated those
rights by delaying their delivery. ECF No. 130 at 10. Judge Bullard correctly concluded
that the allegations and supporting materials did not show Dr. Craane was deliberately
indifferent to Mr. Bakambia’s serious medical needs. ECF No. 125 at 35 (“[T]he complaint
includes no allegations that Dr. Craane deliberately failed to process the prescription even
though he knew Mr. Bakambia had an urgent need for the pills. Indeed, the allegations in
the complaint undercut this conspiratorial characterization—Dr. Craane stated that he did
CASE 0:25-cv-00461-ECT-EMB Doc. 131 Filed 03/09/26 Page 4 of 7

5
not process the prescription on the 27th because he was waiting for the PA’s transcribed
notes from the appointment.”).
Mr. Bakambia objects to the Report and Recommendation’s description of Nurse
William’s conduct. 	ECF No. 130 at 11. 	Though this objection is not entirely clear, I
understand him to mean that certain factual statements in the Report and Recommendation
are wrong, and that Nurse William’s actually-alleged conduct violated his rights. See id.
I have reviewed this material de novo and find no error in Judge Bullard’s conclusion that
Mr. Bakambia failed to allege facts making it plausible that Nurse William was deliberately
indifferent to his serious medical needs. ECF No. 125 at 40–41.
Mr. Bakambia objects to the Report and Recommendation’s conclusion that the
complaint failed to adequately plead Defendants Watt and Brosted were deliberately
indifferent to Mr. Bakambia’s serious medical needs. ECF No. 130 at 12. He argues Judge
Bullard omitted the key fact that they failed to contact the watch commander, id., but the
Report and Recommendation included this allegation, ECF No. 125 at 44.
Mr. Bakambia objects that the Report and Recommendation failed to analyze the
DOC Defendants’ immunity arguments. ECF No. 130 at 11. This is a puzzling objection.
Had the immunity argument been successful, it would be an additional reason to dismiss
Mr. Bakambia’s claims. If it were unsuccessful, the claims would remain dismissal-worthy
for the reasons provided. 	In other words, prevailing on this objection would not get the
complaint past Rule 12(b)(6). Judge Bullard did not err by declining to reach alternative
grounds for dismissal. 	See, e.g., Scheffler v. Dohman, No. 13-cv-106 (DWF/SER),
CASE 0:25-cv-00461-ECT-EMB Doc. 131 Filed 03/09/26 Page 5 of 7

6
2013 WL 6179381, at *4 n.9 (D. Minn. Nov. 26, 2013), aff’d, 785 F.3d 1260 (8th Cir.
2015).
Mr. Bakambia objects to the recommendation that his First Amendment retaliation
claim be dismissed. ECF No. 130 at 12. It is difficult to understand this objection. The
claim in question is Count II, labeled “Retaliatory treatment for filing section 1983 claim
and for filing grievances.” ECF No. 1 at 33. Judge Bullard treated this cause of action as
asserting First Amendment retaliation, though she distinguished the pleading from another
suit Mr. Bakambia had filed, in which the alleged retaliation was disciplinary action. ECF
No. 125 at 46 n.17. She nevertheless cited that case, Bakambia v. Ghebre, No. 24-cv-3653
(LMP/DJF), 2025 WL 2936880, at *10 (D. Minn. May 23, 2025), R. & R. adopted, 2025
WL 2528591 (D. Minn. Sep. 3, 2025), with the parenthetical “(analyzing same claim on
similar facts).” ECF No. 125 at 47. Mr. Bakambia calls this “not sound judgment, because
the First Amendment retaliation in Ghebre was also based on disciplinary issues.” 	ECF
No. 130 at 13. It could be he means that his claim should not have been construed as First
Amendment retaliation. It could also be that he objects to citing Ghebre for having “similar
facts” when that case involved discipline, and this case does not. Either way, there is no
error here.
Mr. Bakambia objects to the recommendation that his state-law claims be dismissed;
he says the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them. ECF No. 130 at 13.
He also objects that Judge Bullard failed to address the claims against DOC Defendant
Captain Salas. 	Id. at 12. 	These objections are unconvincing. 	The Eighth Circuit has
instructed district courts not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims
CASE 0:25-cv-00461-ECT-EMB Doc. 131 Filed 03/09/26 Page 6 of 7

7
when, as here, all federal claims are dismissed well before trial. See Hervey v. County of
Koochiching, 527 F.3d 711, 726–27 (8th Cir. 2008). 	There is no reason to deviate from
that rule here, where all that remains are state-law claims, and trial is a long way off. The
only claims against Defendant Salas arose under Minnesota law, ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 136–41, so
Judge Bullard did not err by declining to consider them.
Accordingly, based on the foregoing, and on all the files, records, and proceedings
in this matter, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. 	Plaintiff Marc Amouri Bakambia’s objections [ECF No. 130] to the Report
and Recommendation are OVERRULED.
2. 	The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 125] is ACCEPTED.
3. 	The DOC Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 35] is GRANTED.
4. 	The Centurion Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 78] is GRANTED.
5. 	Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction [ECF No. 23] is DENIED as
moot.
6. 	This action is DISMISSED.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: March 9, 2026 	s/Eric C. Tostrud
Eric C. Tostrud
United States District Court
CASE 0:25-cv-00461-ECT-EMB Doc. 131 Filed 03/09/26 Page 7 of 7