Stewart v. United States of America

Filing 49

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. Signed by Judge William M Acker, Jr on 8/21/12. (KGE, )

FILED
2012 Aug-21 PM 03:00
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
WILLIAM STEWART,

}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}

Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:09-CV-00803-WMA

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The

court

has

before

plaintiff,

William

Stewart

States of

America

(“United

it

supplemental

(“Stewart”),
States”)

briefs

and

(Docs.

filed

defendant,
47

and

by

United

48),

each

responding to this court’s request that the parties address the
question of whether Stewart’s objections to the magistrate judge’s
findings

and

requirements

recommendations
of

28

U.S.C.

(Doc.
§

41)

636(b)(1),

meet
and

the

specificity

Rule

72(b)(3),

F.R.Civ.P.
What the specificity requirements are under these particular
procedural circumstances presents an interesting question.

It was

raised by the court because the standards and needs for specificity
did not seem to fit the situation at hand.

Whatever the standard,

the court has broad discretion, and, exercising that discretion
concludes that whatever specificity requirements there are, they
have been met by Stewart.
Stewart has not objected to any of the magistrate judge’s
renditions of the undisputed material facts which led him to what

Stewart

claims

is

the

erroneous

recommendation

that

summary

judgment be granted.
The magistrate judge arrived at his recommendation by being
forced to “predict” what the Alabama Supreme Court has never yet
held, but would hold, if called upon, namely, that a psychologist
who has reasonably determined that a patient poses a significant,
imminent threat of death or serious injury to an identifiable
person, would not be liable in tort for reporting that threat to
law

enforcement

without

first

attempting

to

hospitalize

the

patient.

These questions of Alabama law are entitled to de novo

review.

This court hopes that the answers will come from the

Supreme Court of Alabama.
This court is in the process of formulating appropriate
questions to certify to the Supreme Court of Alabama, pursuant to
Rule 18, Ala. R.Civ.P.
DONE this 21st day of August, 2012.
_____________________________
WILLIAM M. ACKER, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE