Gordon v. Amundson et al

Filing 45

ORDER Adopting 44 Report and Recommendations and granting 29 Motion for Summary Judgment. Closing Case. Signed by Judge Darrin P. Gayles on 1/21/2015. (hs01) NOTICE: If there are sealed documents in this case, they may be unsealed after 1 year or as directed by Court Order, unless they have been designated to be permanently sealed. See Local Rule 5.4 and Administrative Order 2014-69.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
MIAMI DIVISION
CASE NO. 13-60483-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF
MAXIMO GORDON,
Plaintiff,
v.
DETECTIVE GARY AMUNDSON,
et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Magistrate Judge Patrick A. White’s Report
(“Report”) [ECF No. 44]. On February 28, 2013, Plaintiff Maximo Gordon (“Plaintiff”), filed a
pro se civil rights complaint [ECF No. 1] pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983 (“section 1983”),
seeking declaratory judgment and monetary damages for alleged violations of his constitutional
rights. The Clerk referred the case to Magistrate Judge White under Administrative Order 200319 for a report and recommendation on any dispositive matters. (See [ECF No. 3]). In the
Report, Magistrate Judge White recommends that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment
[ECF No. 29] be granted and that Plaintiff’s excessive force claim be dismissed. Gordon failed
to timely file objections to the Report. The Court has carefully reviewed the Report, the record,
and applicable law.
I.

BACKGROUND

In the Report, Magistrate Judge White finds that Plaintiff’s excessive force claim is
barred by the rule of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), because a judgment in Plaintiff’s
favor in this §1983 excessive force action would necessarily imply the invalidity of Plaintiff’s

underlying criminal conviction of aggravated fleeing or eluding a law enforcement officer.
When a magistrate judge’s “disposition” has properly been objected to, district courts must
review the disposition de novo. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). If no party timely objects, however,
“the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to
accept the recommendation.” FED. R. CIV. P. 72 advisory committee’s notes (citation omitted).
Plaintiff has failed to timely object to the report.
The Court has reviewed the Report for clear error and is in full agreement with Judge
White’s comprehensive analysis and recommendations. The Court therefore finds Defendants’
motion for summary judgment should be granted and that Plaintiff’s excessive force claim be
dismissed.
For the reasons stated above, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Report [ECF No. 44] is AFFIRMED AND
ADOPTED. It is further
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF
No. 29] is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s claim for excessive force is DISMISSED with prejudice.
It is further
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this case is CLOSED and any pending motions are
DENIED as moot.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida this 21st day of January, 2015.

________________________________
DARRIN P. GAYLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2