Moore v. Sealey

Filing 22

MEMORANUDM OPINION. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(e)(4), to complete the record, the Court orders Sergeant Sealey to produce the photographs of Mr. Moore within 14 days. Given the absence of objecti ons, the Court provisionally accepts the magistrate judges recommendation for entry of judgment in favor of Sergeant Sealey. Following the Courts review of the photographs, the Court will enter a final order. The Court directs the Clerk to please TERM Docs. 12 and 21. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 3/30/2017. (KMG)

FILED
2017 Mar-30 PM 05:04
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHEASTERN DIVISION
STAN WARREN MOORE,
Plaintiff,
v.
JAMES SEALEY, Sergeant,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
) Case No. 5:16-cv-00022-MHH-SGC
)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM OPINION
On June 2, 2016, the magistrate judge notified the parties that the Court
would treat the defendant’s special report as a motion for summary judgment.
(Doc. 15). On February 16, 2017, the magistrate judge entered a report in which
she recommended that the Court grant the defendant’s motion for summary
judgment and dismiss this action with prejudice. (Doc. 21). The magistrate judge
advised the parties of their right to file specific written objections within fourteen
(14) days. (Doc. 21, pp. 19-20). To date, no party has filed objections.
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). In
addition, a district court may “receive further evidence.” Id. 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 record, including Mr. Moore’s complaint and the report
and recommendation, the Court finds no misstatements of law in the report. The
magistrate judge rejected Mr. Moore’s assertion in his summary judgment response
that there are photographs that contradict the body charts that appear in the court
record because Mr. Moore did not sign his response to the motion for summary
judgment and because Mr. Moore did not mention the photographs in his
complaint. (Doc. 21, p. 8). In addition, the magistrate judge correctly pointed out
that Mr. Moore could have asked for the photographs when he requested discovery
(Doc. 13), but he did not do so. (Doc. 21, p. 9).
Evidence in the record, namely the incident report, confirms that Lieutenant
Waver took photographs of Mr. Moore following the incident with Sergeant
Sealey. (Doc. 12-2, p. 1). The incident report states that the photographs are
attached (Id.), but the photographs are not attached to the copy of the incident
report that appears in the court record. (Doc 12-1). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(C) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(e)(4), to complete the record,

1

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. §§
636(b)(1)(B)-(C).
2

the Court orders Sergeant Sealey to produce the photographs of Mr. Moore within
14 days.
Given the absence of objections, the Court provisionally accepts the
magistrate judge’s recommendation for entry of judgment in favor of Sergeant
Sealey. Following the Court’s review of the photographs, the Court will enter a
final order. The Court directs the Clerk to please TERM Docs. 12 and 21.
DONE and ORDERED this March 30, 2017.

_________________________________
MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3