Anderson v. Homewood et al

Filing 69

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Magistrate Judge T Michael Putnam on 7/12/18. (MRR, )

FILED
2018 Jul-12 AM 11:56
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
RANDALL COREY ANDERSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF HOMEWOOD, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:16-cv-00439-TMP

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the court on the defendant City of Homewood’s
Motion for Summary Judgment filed on June 20, 2018. (Doc. 67). The City of
Homewood (“the City”) seeks to dismiss Counts I and IV of plaintiff’s complaint,
which allege violations of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The parties have

consented to dispositive jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate Judge in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (Doc. 10). The plaintiff failed to respond to
the motion, 1 and therefore, the undersigned enters the following Memorandum
Opinion.
1

In the Memorandum Opinion entered on June 12, 2018, the court allowed the City to file
a motion for summary judgment within twenty-one (21) days of the entry of the opinion and
allowed the plaintiff to file a response within twenty-one (21) days of the filing of the motion for
summary judgment. Because the City timely filed its motion on June 20, 2018, the plaintiff had
until July 11, 2018, to file a response to the motion. Furthermore, the Initial Order entered in this

The court previously dismissed the Due Process and Equal Protection claims
brought against defendants Ross and Jeffcoat in Counts I and IV. (Doc. 35 at 2324). For the same reasons stated in the Memorandum Opinion dated December 27,
2016, the City’s motion (doc. 67) is due to be GRANTED. (Id.). The proper
constitutional vehicle to pursue any possible claim for the plaintiff’s arrest arose
under the Fourth Amendment, not the Fourteenth Amendment. Furthermore, as
the City asserts (doc. 68 at 4-5), the plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the City
“had a policy or custom that constituted a deliberate indifference of that
constitutional right” necessary to trigger municipal liability under Monell v. Dep’t
of Soc. Servs. of City of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658, 690-91 (1978). See McDowell v.
Brown, 392 F.3d 1283, 1289 (11th Cir. 2004).
A separate order will be entered.
DONE and ORDERED on July 12, 2018.

_______________________________
T. MICHAEL PUTNAM
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

case provided the plaintiff with twenty-one (21) days to respond to any dispositive motion.
(Doc. 12, p. 5, § IV.B.1.).
2