govinfo:USCOURTS-mnd-0_25-cv-03449-1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA 
 
Oji K. Markham, 
   
  Plaintiff, 
       ORDER ON REPORT  
 v.      AND RECOMMENDATION 
       Civil No. 25-3449 ADM/ECW 
Officer Kelgar,1 Lt. Klein,  
and Chief Jason Ohtto.    
 
  Defendants. 
______________________________________________________________________________ 
 
Oji K. Markham, pro se. 
 
Alana M Mosley, Rice, Walther & Mosley, LLP, for Defendants. 
______________________________________________________________________________ 
 
I.  INTRODUCTION 
 This matter is before the undersigned United States District Judge for a ruling on Plaintiff 
Oji K. Markham’s (“Markham”) Objection [Docket No. 34] to Magistrate Judge Elizabeth 
Cowan Wright’s May 6, 2026, Report and Recommendation [Docket No. 33] (“R&R”).  In the 
R&R, Judge Wright recommends granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 16] 
based on qualified immunity.  After a de novo review of the record, and for the reasons stated 
below, Markham’s Objections are overruled and the R&R is adopted.  
II.  DISCUSSION 
 In reviewing a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the district court “shall 
make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or 
recommendations to which objection is made.”  28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also D. Minn. 
 
1  Markham acknowledges that he misidentified the officer at the scene as “Kelgar” when it was 
in fact Officer Caleb Koecher.  [Docket No. 18, at 1.]  The Court will refer to the officer as 
“Koecher.”   
CASE 0:25-cv-03449-ADM-ECW     Doc. 35     Filed 05/20/26     Page 1 of 3
2 
 
L.R. 72.2(b).  The district judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings 
or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”  28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).   
 The factual background of this case is thoroughly set forth in the R&R and is 
incorporated by reference.  Markham first objects to the R&R’s conclusion that he did not 
plausibly allege a Fourth Amendment violation by Koecher and, even if he did, Koecher is 
entitled to qualified immunity.  After a de novo review, the Court agrees with Judge Wright’s 
well-reasoned conclusion that Markham’s interaction with Koecher was not unconstitutional and 
that Koecher is shielded from suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity.  Accordingly, 
dismissal is appropriate as to Koecher. 
 Markham also objects to the R&R’s recommendation that the Court dismiss his claim 
against Kelin and Ohotto based on their refusal to write an incident report after he complained 
about his encounter with Koecher.  The Court agrees with Judge Wright’s assessment that 
Markham’s claim is untenable because the failure to write an incident report does not constitute a 
constitutional violation.  Dismissal is also appropriate as to Klein and Ohotto.   
III.  CONCLUSION 
 Based upon the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS 
HEREBY ORDERED that: 
1. Plaintiff Oji K. Markham’s Objection [Docket No. 34] to Magistrate Judge 
Elizabeth Cowan Wright’s Report and Recommendation is OVERRULED; 
 
 2. The Report and Recommendation [Docket No. 33] is ADOPTED;  
 
 3. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 16] is GRANTED; and 
  
CASE 0:25-cv-03449-ADM-ECW     Doc. 35     Filed 05/20/26     Page 2 of 3
3 
 
 4. The case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 
 
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.  
 
 
       BY THE COURT: 
 
Dated:  May 20, 2026 
       s/Ann D. Montgomery    
       ANN D. MONTGOMERY 
       U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 
CASE 0:25-cv-03449-ADM-ECW     Doc. 35     Filed 05/20/26     Page 3 of 3

Passage view · GavelSight