H.M. v. Castoro

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT PIERCE DIVISION CASE NO. 21-14319-CIV-CANNON/McCabe H.M., individually and as Guardian for H.S. an Unemancipated Minor, Plaintiff, v. DEPUTY SHERIFF NICHOLAS VINCENT CASTORO in his individual capacity, Defendant. __________________________________________________/ ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF No. 54] THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (the “Report”) [ECF No. 54], filed on January 10, 2023. On November 8, 2022, Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 40]. On January 10, 2023, following referral, Judge McCabe issued a Report recommending that the Motion be granted [ECF No. 54 pp. 1, 12]. Plaintiff filed Objections to the Report [ECF No. 55], and Defendant filed a Response to Plaintiff’s Objections [ECF No. 56].

LEGAL STANDARD To challenge the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge, a party must file specific written objections identifying the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815, 822 (11th Cir. 1989); Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). A district court reviews de novo those portions of the report to which objection is made and 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). To the extent a party fails to object to parts of the magistrate judge’s report, the Court may accept the recommendation so long as there is no clear error on the face of the record. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784. Legal conclusions are reviewed de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See LeCroy v. McNeil, 397 F. App’x 554, 556 (11th Cir. 2010); Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994).

DISCUSSION The Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report [ECF No. 54], Plaintiff’s Objections [ECF No. 55], Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Objections [ECF No. 56], and the full record. Upon review of the foregoing materials, the Court finds Judge McCabe’s Report to be well-reasoned and correct.

Defendant moved for summary judgment on two grounds: (1) the undisputed facts demonstrate that Defendant did not violate H.S.’s (unemancipated minor) Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive use of force; and (2) Defendant is nevertheless shielded from liability under the doctrine of qualified immunity [ECF No. 40 pp. 1–2]. The Court agrees with the Report that, construing the undisputed facts in Plaintiff’s favor, Plaintiff failed to meet his burden to show a Fourth Amendment violation; therefore, as a matter of law, Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity [see ECF No. 54 p. 10]. Additionally, and for the same reasons, the Court agrees with the Report that no reasonable juror could conclude that Defendant violated Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive use of force [ECF No. 54 p. 12]. In reaching these conclusions, the Court has considered Plaintiff’s Objections but finds no basis to reject or modify CASE NO. 21-14319-CIV-CANNON/McCabe the Report. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 40] is therefore GRANTED for the reasons set forth in the Report [ECF No. 54 pp. 5-12].

CONCLUSION Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 54] is ACCEPTED.

2. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 40] is GRANTED.

3. Plaintiffs Amended Complaint [ECF No. 28] is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

4. The Court will enter a separate final judgment pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida this 7th day of February 2023.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ce: counsel of record