ANDERSON v. LOFLAND

Filing 110

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. ACCEPTING 106 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Granting in part 94 AND 95 Motion for Summary Judgment. The Clerk must enter judgment stating: Judgment on the merits on the federal claims is entered in favo r of the defendant Larry Campbell in his official and individual capacities and in favor of the defendants Carl Bennett, Tim Ruth, and Andrew Dawson in their individual capacities. Those claims are dismissed with prejudice. The state-law claims a gainst Mr. Campbell, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Ruth, and Mr. Dawson are dismissed based on the discretionary decision not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. The federal official-capacity claims against Mr. Bennett, Mr. Ruth, and Mr. Dawson are dismisse d as redundant. The claims against the defendants Edith Brandt and J. McFarland are dismissed without prejudice for failure to service process and failure to prosecute. The claims against the defendant Jennifer Frost and all defendants named in pr ior versions of the plaintiffs complaintincluding Holly Lofland, Jerry Dent, Deborah Linton, Harvery Carruth, and Kim Petersonare voluntarily dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). Any other claims against any other defendants are dismissed. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 11/28/11. (pll)

Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

GEOFFREY H. ANDERSON,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 4:09cv134-RH/WCS

ANDREW DAWSON et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This case is before the court on the report and recommendation, ECF No.
106, and the objections, ECF No. 109. The objections are contumacious in tone.
The plaintiff has a right to litigate his claims fully and fairly, but he has no right to
belittle the magistrate judge or others involved in the judicial process. The practice
must stop.
I have reviewed de novo the issues raised by the objections. This order
directs the entry of a judgment ending the litigation on the grounds summarized
below. A full description of the claims and their deficiencies is set out in the report
and recommendation. The bottom line is this: the defendants are entitled to

Case No. 4:09cv134-RH/WCS

Page 2 of 5

dismissal of, or summary judgment on, all of the plaintiff’s federal claims, and I
decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of any remaining state-law claims.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(3).
The plaintiff alleges his constitutional rights were violated while he was
detained in the Leon County Jail. He seeks relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state
law. The fourth amended complaint names seven defendants, all in their official
and individual capacities: Sheriff Larry Campbell, jail administrator Carl Bennett,
booking officer Tim Ruth, breathalyzer operator Andre Dawson, nurses Edith
Brandt and Jennifer Frost, and physician’s assistant J. McFarland.
Sheriff Campbell is entitled to summary judgment on the § 1983 officialcapacity claims because the plaintiff has not met the standards for imposing
official-capacity liability on a Florida sheriff. A sheriff, like a city, can be held
liable under § 1983 for an individual officer’s violation of a person’s constitutional
rights only if (1) the violation was based on a sheriff’s-department policy or
custom or (2) the employee is one whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to
represent official policy. See, e.g., Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.,
436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978). The plaintiff has presented no evidence that would
support a judgment in his favor on either of these grounds, even if, as the plaintiff
alleges, his constitutional rights were violated at the jail.

Case No. 4:09cv134-RH/WCS

Page 3 of 5

The official-capacity claims against the other defendants are redundant to
the claims against the Sheriff and are properly dismissed on this basis. See, e.g.,
Busby v. City of Orlando, 931 F.2d 764, 776 (11th Cir. 1991) (approving the
dismissal of official-capacity defendants whose presence was merely redundant to
the naming of an institutional defendant). If not dismissed on this basis, summary
judgment would be proper for these defendants, just as for Sheriff Campbell.
Sheriff Campbell and Mr. Bennett are entitled to summary judgment on the
individual-capacity claims because the undisputed evidence establishes that they
were not personally involved in any way with the events at issue. The plaintiff
apparently admits this, explicitly abandoning these claims in response to the
summary-judgment motion.
Mr. Ruth and Mr. Dawson are entitled to summary judgment because the
plaintiff has presented no evidence that they violated the plaintiff’s constitutional
rights in any respect, or conspired or cooperated with anyone who did so. Mr.
Ruth booked the plaintiff into the jail. Mr. Dawson unsuccessfully attempted to
administer a breathalyzer. The plaintiff had no constitutional right not to be
booked, and no constitutional right to take—or not to be asked to take—a
breathalyzer.

Case No. 4:09cv134-RH/WCS

Page 4 of 5

An earlier order granted the plaintiff’s consented motion to voluntarily
dismiss his claims against Ms. Frost, but a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b)
judgment was not entered. Judgment now should be entered.
The plaintiff did not effect service of process on Ms. Brandt or Mr.
McFarland. The claims against them are properly dismissed for failing to serve
process by the deadline, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), and for failure to prosecute. The
report and recommendation provided any notice required Rule 4(m).
For these reasons, as further supported by the report and recommendation,
IT IS ORDERED:
The report and recommendation is ACCEPTED. The summary-judgment
motions, ECF Nos. 94 and 95, are GRANTED IN PART. The clerk must enter
judgment stating:
Judgment on the merits on the federal claims is entered in favor of the
defendant Larry Campbell in his official and individual capacities and
in favor of the defendants Carl Bennett, Tim Ruth, and Andrew
Dawson in their individual capacities. Those claims are dismissed
with prejudice. The state-law claims against Mr. Campbell, Mr.
Bennett, Mr. Ruth, and Mr. Dawson are dismissed based on the
discretionary decision not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. The
federal official-capacity claims against Mr. Bennett, Mr. Ruth, and
Mr. Dawson are dismissed as redundant. The claims against the
defendants Edith Brandt and J. McFarland are dismissed without
prejudice for failure to service process and failure to prosecute. The
claims against the defendant Jennifer Frost and all defendants named
in prior versions of the plaintiff’s complaint—including Holly
Lofland, Jerry Dent, Deborah Linton, Harvery Carruth, and Kim
Peterson—are voluntarily dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil

Case No. 4:09cv134-RH/WCS

Page 5 of 5

Procedure 41(a). Any other claims against any other defendants are
dismissed.
The clerk must close the file.
SO ORDERED on November 28, 2011.
s/Robert L. Hinkle
United States District Judge

Case No. 4:09cv134-RH/WCS