Martin v. Schott

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _______________

No. 98-30986

Summary Calendar _______________

WILLIE MARTIN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, VERSUS

UNKNOWN SCHOTT, Captain, et al.,

Defendants, EDDIE VEAL, Lieutenant; WILLIE WASHINGTON, Lieutenant;

NORRIS BONTON, Sergeant,

Defendants-Appellants. _________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana (96-CV-3342) _________________________

September 20, 1999

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and affirm.1

EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit

Judges.

JERRY E. SMITH, Circuit Judge:*

Willie Martin sued prison employees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging they used excessive force in violation of the Constitution and

Louisiana tort law. Appellants moved for dismissal of the state law claims, asserting

Eleventh Amendment immunity. The court denied the motion, and, finding no error, we

* 1

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has An order denying Eleventh Amendment determined that this opinion should not be immunity is immediately appealable under the published and is not precedent except under the collateral order doctrine, to the extent the order limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. turns on issues of law. See Sherwinski v. Peterson, 47.5.4. 98 F.3d 849, 851 (5th Cir. 1996). may accept, reject, or m odify the I. recommended decision, receive further Appellants contend that the court evidence, or recommit the matter to the erroneously failed to make a de novo review of magistrate judge with instructions.” As stated objected-to portions of the magistrate judge's in United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 recommendation, as required by 28 U.S.C. (1980), the purpose of the section is to “permit § 636(b)(1)(C).2 Although the court used whatever reliance a district judge, in the unfortunate language in ruling that exercise of sound judicial discretion, chose to “[d]efendants’ [objections] . . . do not require place on a magistrate’s proposed findings and de novo review,” in context it is evident that recommendations.” the court complied with the requirements of

§ 636(b)(1)(C) by stating that “[t]he court has The court reviewed the appellants’ carefully considered the petition, the record, objections and all other relevant material and the law applicable to this action, [and] the made an independent decision to adopt the [Magistrate’s] Report and Recommendation.” recommendation, in accordance with § 636. Although the court’s words were somewhat off the mark, a remand would be a waste and The text of § 636(b)(1)(C) and the related would result in no change in the result. rule 72(b) make plain that a court's “de novo” determination may be based solely on the II. record and that the court may accept the Appellants contend the Eleventh magistrate judge’s recommended decision in Amendment bars a Louisiana state law claim its entirety; for example, rule 72(b) provides brought in federal court against a state that the district court “shall make a de novo employee in his individual capacity for what determination upon the record, or after may be found to be wrongful and intentional additional evidence . . . . The district judge acts. The court rejected this contention, as do we. receive indemnification.” Reyes, 168 F.3d at 163. Therefore, there is no Eleventh Amendment bar to the state law claims.

AFFIRMED.