Gutierrez v. Hassel et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION - Having reviewed the complaint, the plaintiffs medical records, and the magistrate judges report and recommendation, the Court finds no misstatements of law in the report and no plain error in the magistrate judges factual finding s. Therefore, the Court adopts the magistrate judges report. The Court will issue a separate final order entering judgment as a matter of law in favor of defendants Bryan Scot Pitman, Craig Fileccia, Kashif Chowhan, and Christopher Purdy. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 9/10/2018. (KEK)
2018 Sep-10 AM 08:59
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SCOTT HASSEL, et al.,
Case No.: 4:14-cv-738-MHH-JHE
On April 22, 2014, pro se plaintiff Leonardo Gutierrez filed this action
against defendants Scott Hassel, Bryan Scot Pitman (Doc. 34, p. 1; Doc. 34-1, p.
1), Georgia H. Lund, III, Walter M. Ingram, Craig Fileccia, Kashif Chowhan (Doc.
34, p. 1; Doc. 34-3, p. 1), Christopher Purdy (Doc. 34, p. 1; Doc. 34-4, p. 2), and
the United States of America. (Doc. 1). Mr. Gutierrez also moved to proceed in
forma pauperis. (Doc. 2). The magistrate judge to whom this case originally was
assigned granted that motion on June 13, 2014. (Doc. 9).
On June 28, 2017, the Court dismissed without prejudice all of Mr.
Gutierrez’s claims other than his excessive force claim against Mr. Pitman, Mr.
Fileccia, Mr. Chowhan, and Mr. Purdy. (Doc. 20, pp. 4-5). On July 10, 2017, the
magistrate judge ordered the remaining defendants to file a special report about
Mr. Gutierrez’s remaining claim. (Doc. 21, pp. 3-4).
The remaining defendants filed their special report on November 20, 2017.
(Doc. 34). The magistrate judge treated the special report as a motion for summary
judgment and ordered Mr. Gutierrez to respond to it. (Doc. 35). Mr. Gutierrez
filed his response on February 26, 2018. (Doc. 36).
On June 22, 2018, the magistrate judge recommended that the Court dismiss
with prejudice Mr. Gutierrez’s excessive force claim against the remaining
defendants. (Doc. 37 at 9). The magistrate judge advised the parties of their right
to file specific written objections within 30 days. (Doc. 37, pp. 9-10). To date,
Mr. Gutierrez has not objected to the magistrate judge’s report and
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). A
district court reviews legal conclusions in a report de novo and reviews for plain
error factual findings to which no objection is made. Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d
776, 779 n. 9 (11th Cir. 1993); see also LoConte v. Dugger, 847 F.2d 745, 749
(11th Cir. 1988); Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 Fed. Appx. 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006).1
Having reviewed the complaint, the plaintiff’s medical records, and the
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the Court finds no misstatements of
When a party objects to a report in which a magistrate judge recommends dismissal of the
action, a district court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or
specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. §
law in the report and no plain error in the magistrate judge’s factual findings.
Therefore, the Court adopts the magistrate judge’s report.
The Court will issue a separate final order entering judgment as a matter of
law in favor of defendants Bryan Scot Pitman, Craig Fileccia, Kashif Chowhan,
and Christopher Purdy.
DONE this 10th Day of September, 2018.
MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?