Heyn v. Wilkes
Filing
19
ORDER adopting 17 Report and Recommendations and granting 14 Motion for Summary Judgment. Ordered by Judge C. Ashley Royal on 7/17/12 (lap)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
MATTHEW ROBERT HEYN,
Plaintiff,
v.
DEPUTY HAROLD G. WILKES,
Defendant.
___________________________________
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Civil Action No. 5:11‐cv‐203
PROCEEDINGS UNDER
42 U.S.C. § 1983
ORDER ON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is the United States Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation [Doc. 17] that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment be granted
based on Defendant’s qualified immunity. Plaintiff filed an Objection to the
Recommendation [Doc. 18]. Having considered Plaintiff’s Objections and having
investigated those matters de novo, this Court agrees with the findings and conclusions
of the United States Magistrate Judge that Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity,
and thus his Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 14] must be GRANTED. The Report
and Recommendation [Doc. 17] of the United States Magistrate Judge is therefore
ADOPTED and MADE THE ORDER OF THE COURT.
1
In this case, Plaintiff claims Defendant used excessive force in arresting him. On
February 21, 2012, Defendant filed his Motion for Summary Judgment together with
supporting affidavits and a statement of material facts. Despite the Court’s Order
notifying Plaintiff of his right to respond to the Motion pursuant to Rule 56 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and warning him that failure to respond to and rebut
the statements set forth in Defendant’s affidavits may result in those statements being
accepted as the truth, Plaintiff failed to respond to the Motion. Recognizing the Court
cannot grant summary judgment by default, the Magistrate Judge analyzed the
uncontested evidence and found it failed to raise any issue of material fact as to
whether Plaintiff’s constitutional rights were violated.
In his Objection, Plaintiff simply restates the allegations he set forth in his
Complaint and fails to raise any issue of material fact. This Court agrees that the
uncontested evidence establishes that Defendant’s actions in using a taser against
Plaintiff and subsequently striking Plaintiff in the face were reasonable in light of
Plaintiff’s behavior, who was combative, resistant to arrest, noncompliant with police
instructions, and wherein he actually kicked Defendant in the face. The evidence makes
clear that Plaintiff was forcefully resisting arrest, was a danger to not only to the officers
but also to himself, and Defendant’s use of force was a reasonable response to Plaintiff’s
combative behavior. Moreover, the circumstances establish that Defendant only used
the amount of force necessary to subdue Plaintiff to effectuate the arrest, and such force
2
inflicted only minor injuries to Plaintiff. Thus, Defendant’s actions did not violate
Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court agrees with the Magistrate
Judge’s findings and conclusion that Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity,
and his Motion for Summary Judgment should be granted. Thus, the Report and
Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge [Doc. 17] is hereby
ADOPTED and MADE THE ORDER OF THE COURT.
SO ORDERED, this 17th day of July, 2012.
S/ C. Ashley Royal
C. ASHLEY ROYAL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
SSH
3
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?