NORWOOD v. YORK et al

Filing 56

ORDER: Defendant City of Gainesville's 41 Motion to Dismiss and 47 Motion to Strike are GRANTED, and the claims against Defendant City of Gainesville are dismissed from the case. Signed by SENIOR JUDGE MAURICE M PAUL on 3/27/2013. (jws)

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
GAINESVILLE DIVISION
ANTHONY L NORWOOD,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 1:11-cv-00176-MP-GRJ

CITY OF GAINESVILLE and
ANDY J ZAWADZKI,
Defendants.
_____________________________/
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Doc. 50, the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge, recommending that the claims against the City of Gainesville be dismissed.
The plaintiff filed1 objections, Doc. 52, and the Court has made a de novo determination of those
portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objection was made. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(C). The Court notes that while the Plaintiff’s Amended Civil Rights Complaint2 lists
the City of Gainesville as the first Defendant on the first page of the Complaint, there are no
allegations against the City of Gainesville, nor is the City of Gainesville listed as a Defendant on
page two of the Plaintiff’s Complaint, under paragraph 2 “Defendant(s).” Moreover, under
paragraph 5, “Statement of Fact,” there are no allegations against the City of Gainesville.
However, under paragraph 6 “Statement of Claims,” number three indicates
1

In Doc. 54, the plaintiff filed a motion to extend time to file objections, stating that he
wished to have the handwritten objections he had already filed at Doc. 52 typed. This is not
necessary. The Court was able to fully read and understand the objections at Doc. 52, and the
motion at Doc. 54 is denied as moot.
2

The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the Fifth Amended Complaint, Doc. 46,
should be stricken as a futile amendment not authorized by the Court.

Page 2 of 2

“Negligence—Failure to properly train officers in the use of force.” This claim is apparently
intended to be directed at the City of Gainesville. However, the City of Gainesville is not liable
for the claims alleged by the Plaintiff because the hiring and training of police officers is policy
making activity for which the State of Florida and its subdivisions such as municipalities have
not waived sovereign immunity. Mr. Norwood's objection does not mention the sovereign
immunity issue at all. Upon consideration, the Court agrees that any and all claims against the
City of Gainesville should be dismissed with prejudice as barred by sovereign immunity. It is
hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
Defendant City of Gainesville’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 41) and Defendant’s Motion to
Strike (Doc. 47) are GRANTED, and the claims against Defendant City of Gainesville are
dismissed from the case.
DONE AND ORDERED this 27th day of March, 2013

s/Maurice M. Paul
Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case No: 1:11-cv-00176-MP-GRJ