Cathey v. Curry et al

Filing 52

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 8/17/2015. (KEK)

FILED
2015 Aug-17 AM 11:35
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DAVEON LAMARNCE CATHEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
OFFICER PATRICK MONK, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:12-cv-04115-MHH-SGC

MEMORANDUM OPINION
On July 10, 2015, the magistrate judge filed a report recommending the Court grant the
defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 51). No party has filed an objection to the
report or to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.
A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). When a party files
timely objections to a report and recommendation, the district court “make[s] a de novo
determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations
to which objection is made.” Id. When no party objects, the district court does not have to
conduct a de novo review. Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993); see also
United States v. Slay, 714 F.2d 1093, 1095 (11th Cir. 1983) (per curiam), cert. denied, 464 U.S.
1050 (1984) (“The failure to object to the magistrate’s findings of fact prohibits an attack on
appeal of the factual findings adopted by the district court except on grounds of plain error or
manifest injustice.”) (internal citation omitted).
In Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 Fed. Appx. 781 (11th Cir. 2006), the Eleventh Circuit
stated:

Most circuits agree that “[i]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a district
court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must only satisfy itself that
there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the
recommendation.” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins., 416 F.3d 310, 315
(4th Cir. 2005) (quotations omitted); accord Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170
F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir.1999) (“If no objection or only partial objection is made
[to the magistrate judge’s report], the district court judge reviews those
unobjected portions for clear error.”); United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219,
1221 (5th Cir. 1989) (noting that the “clearly erroneous” standard is appropriate
where there has been no objection to the magistrate judge’s ruling); Drywall
Tapers & Pointers v. Local 530, 889 F.2d 389, 395 (2d Cir. 1989) (“Where a
magistrate [judge] has been appointed to conduct an evidentiary hearing, the
district court reviews the Report and Recommendation under the same clearly
erroneous standard.”) (citing Wooldridge v. Marlene Indus. Corp., 875 F.2d 540,
544 (6th Cir. 1989)).
Id. at 784. The Eleventh Circuit does not appear to have expressly held that a district court
should review a report and recommendation for plain error in the absence of objections;
however, other courts in this Circuit have adopted such a position.

Tauber v. Barnhart, 438 F.

Supp. 2d 1366, 1373 (N.D. Ga. 2006) (“[I]ssues upon which no specific objections are raised do
not so require de novo review; the district court may therefore accept, reject, or modify, in whole
or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge, applying a clearly
erroneous standard.”) (internal citations and quotations omitted); Am. Charities for Reasonable
Fundraising Regulation, Inc. v. Pinellas County, 278 F. Supp. 2d 1301, 1307 (M.D. Fla. 2003)
(“[W]hen no timely and specific objections are filed, case law indicates that the court should
review the findings using a clearly erroneous standard.”); Shuler v. Infinity Property & Gas,
2013 WL 1346615, at *1 (N.D. Ala. March 29, 2013) (portions of a report and recommendation
“to which no objection is filed are reviewed only for clear error”).
Having reviewed and considered the materials in the court file, including the report and
recommendation and the video of the incident involving Mr. Cathey (Doc. 36-2), the Court

adopts the magistrate judge’s report and accepts her recommendation. The Court finds that there
are no genuine issues of material fact and that the defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter
of law. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (Doc.
39. The Court denies Mr. Cathey’s motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 49).
A Final Judgment will be entered.
DONE and ORDERED this August 17, 2015.

_________________________________
MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE