Burns v. Rogers

Filing 31

MEMORANDUM OPINION ADOPTING and ACCEPTING the 30 Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 7/3/2018. (JLC)

FILED
2018 Jul-03 PM 01:57
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JAMES CARL BURNS,
Plaintiff,
v.
JAMES ROGERS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:17-cv-00498-RDP-JEO

MEMORANDUM OPINION
The Magistrate Judge filed a report on June 6, 2018, recommending Plaintiff’s
claims against the unknown insurance company and his claims against defendant
Rodgers in his official capacity for money damages be dismissed without prejudice
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), for failing to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted. (Doc. 30). The Magistrate Judge further recommended that
defendant Rodgers’ motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment
excessive force claim be granted and the claim be dismissed with prejudice. (Id.).
Additionally, the Magistrate Judge notified Plaintiff that summary judgment
may be due on Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against
Rodgers. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f)(2)-(3). (Doc. 30). The Magistrate Judge directed
Plaintiff to respond with any and all evidence and argument in opposition to the sua
sponte motion for summary judgment within twenty (20) days. (Id. at 37).
1

The

Magistrate Judge also advised the parties of their right to file specific written
objections to the report and recommendation within twenty (20) days. (Id.).
Twenty days have elapsed and Plaintiff has not responded. And neither party
has filed objections to the report and recommendation.
Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the
court file, including the report and recommendation, the Magistrate Judge’s report
is hereby ADOPTED and the recommendation is ACCEPTED. Therefore, in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), Plaintiff’s claims against the unknown
insurance company and his claims against defendant Rodgers in his official capacity
for money damages are due to be dismissed without prejudice for failing to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted.
The court further finds that defendant Rodgers’ motion for summary judgment
on Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment excessive force claim is due to be granted, as there
are no genuine issues of material fact. Moreover, the Magistrate Judge’s summary
judgment is also due to be granted as Plaintiff has failed to show that Rodgers’
actions rose to a level that shocks the conscience or was otherwise unconstitutional.
See County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 837, 853-54 (1998). Specifically,
Plaintiff has presented no evidence that defendant Rodgers intended to harm him
physically, intended to worsen his legal plight by colliding with him, or was
motivated by anything other than a desire to stop the pursuit and arrest Plaintiff. Id.
2

Therefore, no genuine issues of material fact exist and Rodgers is entitled to
summary judgment on this claim.
Because Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims are due to be dismissed, to the extent
Plaintiff has alleged supplemental state law claims against defendant Rodgers, such
claims are due to be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).
A Final Judgment will be entered dismissing this case in its entirety.
DONE and ORDERED this July 3, 2018.

_________________________________
R. DAVID PROCTOR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3