Lockhart et al v. Vest et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge L Scott Coogler on 7/10/2014. (KAM, )
2014 Jul-10 PM 04:41
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
HAROLD LOCKHART, et al.,
TONY VEST, et al.,
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
Before the Court are certain motions for summary judgment filed by the
defendants seeking either partial1 or full summary judgment (docs. 48, 50, 52 and 54)
along with the responses thereto. The Magistrate Judge filed a report and
recommendation on May 14, 2014, recommending that this Court grant all but one of
the aspects of the pending motions for summary judgment. (Doc. 81.) The defendants
objected to the recommendation that this Court deny summary judgment on the
plaintiffs’ claim that the defendants conducted an unlawful investigative search of the
plaintiffs’ residence that exceeded any authorized protective sweep. (Doc. 82.) The
Defendant, Tony Vest, did not move for summary judgment on plaintiff, Glenda
Lockhart’s, claims against him for false arrest and false imprisonment, stating that disputes of
material facts exist with regard to those claims.
plaintiffs, on the other hand, proffered no objection to the Magistrate Judge’s report
This case was then randomly reassigned to the undersigned judge. Having
reviewed the matter, and having the benefit of the defendants’ objections, which the
Magistrate Judge did not have, this Court finds that the Magistrate Judge’s report and
recommendation is due to be adopted insofar as it grants the pending motions, but it
is not due to be adopted with respect to the portion that is the subject of the
The Defendants’ Objections
Standard of Review
When objections are filed to a Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings of fact and
recommendation, the district court is to “make a de novo determination of those
portions of the report . . . to which objection is made.” See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C);
LoConte v. Dugger, 847 F.2d 745, 750 (11th Cir. 1988).
The Magistrate Judge’s Conclusion that there is a Genuine Dispute of
Material Fact as to the Plaintiffs’ Claim of an Unlawful Warrantless
The defendants object to the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that there is
sufficient evidence for the plaintiffs to present to a jury their claim that the defendants
Page 2 of 6
conducted an illegal investigative search of their residence without a warrant. This
Court agrees with the defendants’ objection.
As an initial matter, the Court largely agrees with and adopts the Magistrate
Judge’s statement of facts and conclusions of law and will not restate them here except
when they are rejected or when repeating them will facilitate a better understanding
of the Court’s analysis. The only point where this Court disagrees with the Magistrate
Judge is found in the Report and Recommendation’s conclusion that, “The
circumstantial evidence of the presence of the four defendants, the movement seen
inside the plaintiff’s house, the sounds of searching heard by the plaintiff’s
grandchildren, and signs of a search discovered when the plaintiffs returned home is
enough to allow a jury to determine the truth about the defendants’ involvement.”
( Doc. 81 at 45.)
There were, according to the plaintiffs’ own testimony, between six and ten
deputies at their residence that night.2 This Court “accept[s] the nonmovant’s
As the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded:
The plaintiffs may not testify to one version of the facts, but rely on another for the
purposes of creating a dispute of fact. The court must take the non-moving plaintiffs’
version of the facts. Accordingly, despite what the plaintiffs contend in their brief, this
court must operate on the testimony that there were anywhere from 6 to 10 deputies at
the Lockhart residence on the night in question.
(Doc. 81 at 40.)
Page 3 of 6
version of the events when reviewing a decision on summary judgment. When the
nonmovant has testified to events, we do not . . . pick and choose bits from other
witnesses’ essentially incompatible accounts (in effect, declining to credit some of the
nonmovant’s own testimony) and then string together those portions of the record to
form the story that we deem most helpful to the nonmovant.” Evans v. Stephens, 407
F.3d 1272, 1278 (11th Cir. 2005). In addition, the evidence unquestionably supports
the conclusion that a search that exceeded the authority of the law enforcement
officials at the scene was actually conducted by someone that night.
The problem for the plaintiffs, however, is that there is a complete absence of
evidence pointing to any particular officer as being the one or ones who conducted the
allegedly illegal search. To the contrary, the only evidence offered concerning the
actual identity of any officer searching the residence was from Glenda Lockhart herself
who stated that the deputy she saw looking behind books and opening the cabinet
doors was not one of the defendants. “[T]o prevail against [the deputies] in their
individual capacities, [plaintiffs were] required to show that they were personally
involved in acts or omissions that resulted in the constitutional deprivation.”Hale v.
Tallapoosa County, 50 F.3d 1579, 1582 (11th Cir. 1995). This, the plaintiffs failed to
Page 4 of 6
Neither this Court nor the jury is free to guess at the identity of the alleged
wrongdoer or doers. When the evidence points just as clearly to one as the other, it
fails to support an indictment of either. It can not be said, in this case, that the
evidence supports a reasonable inference that the defendants, as opposed to the other
deputies who were present, conducted the warrantless search of the plaintiffs’
residence. After all, “an inference is not reasonable if it is ‘only a guess or a
possibility,’ for such an inference is not based on the evidence but is pure conjecture
and speculation.” Daniels v. Twin Oaks Nursing Home, 692 F.2d 1321, 1324 (11th Cir.
1982). In other words, there is no issue of disputed fact and no reasonable jury could
differ on the conclusion that the plaintiffs did not meet their burden of proof.
The Magistrate Judge entered a well-reasoned and thorough report and
recommendation, but having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the
materials in the court file, including the objections to the report and recommendation
which the Magistrate Judge did not have, this Court cannot agree that there is a triable
issue of fact on the plaintiffs’ claim that the defendants conducted an unlawful
warrantless investigative search of their residence on the night in question.
Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge’s report is not due to be adopted and accepted on
Page 5 of 6
that issue. In all other respects, the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation
is due to be adopted and accepted.
For the reasons stated herein, there being no genuine issue of material fact, the
defendants’ motions for full and partial summary judgment (docs. 48, 50, 52 and 54)
are due to be granted. A separate order will be entered.
Done this 10th day of July 2014.
L. Scott Coogler
United States District Judge
Page 6 of 6
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?