Haynes v. Richmond County Sheriff Office et al

Filing 110

ORDER ADOPTING 105 Report and Recommendations. Defendant's 82 Motion for Summary Judgment is granted. Judgment is entered in favor of Defendants. This civil action stands closed. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 08/31/2017. (pts)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION

RODERICK D. HAYNES,

Plaintiff,
CV 114-237

v.

DEPUTY MICHAEL GARNER,
Defendant.

ORDER

After a careful, de novo review of the file, the Court concurs with the Magistrate

Judge's Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), to which objections have been filed. (Doc.
no. 60.)

Nothing

in Plaintiffs objections undermines the Magistrate Judge's

recommendation, and only one objection warrants further comment.

Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge's scope of undisputed facts, and he provides
a new declaration in support of his objections alleging new disputed facts. (Doc. no. 107, pp.

2-4; doc. no. 108.) While courts have the discretion to consider novel evidence, factual

claims, and legal argument raised for the first time in an objection to an R&R, they are under

no obligation to do so. Frone v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., -F. App'x- No. 16-12843, 2017

WL 2417866, at *3 (11th Cir. June 5, 2017) (concluding district judge has broad discretion in
considering argument not presented to magistrate judge); Williams v. McNeil 557 F.3d

1287, 1292 (11th Cir. 2009) (same). The Court chooses not to consider Plaintiffs new
factual claims here.

The Court first instructed Plaintiff about the consequences of failing to specifically

oppose an opposing party's statement of material facts in the Court's May 15, 2015 Order.
(Doc. no. 12, p. 5.) The Court warned,

Should Plaintiff fail to file opposing affidavits setting forth specific facts
showing that there is a genuine issue for trial, the consequences are these: any
factual assertions made in the defendant's affidavits will be accepted as true
and summary judgment will be entered against Plaintiff pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 56.

Id. After Defendant filed the present motion for summary judgment, the Court provided
Plaintiff with further instructions, warning,

Any factual assertions made in the affidavits of the party moving for summary
judgment will be deemed admitted by this Court pursuant to Loc. R. 7.5 and
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 unless Plaintiff contradicts the movant's assertions through
submission of his own affidavits or other documentary evidence, and the

motion for summary judgment will be granted on the grounds that said motion
is unopposed. See Loc. R. 7.5.

(Doc. no. 91, p. 3.) Despite these multiple warnings, Plaintiff did not include what he now
asserts are contradictory material facts in his original declaration in support of his opposition
to Defendant's motion. Therefore, because he failed to heed the Court's multiple warnings,
the Court will not consider Plaintiffs new factual allegations.

See Frone, 2017 WL

2417866, at *3; Williams, 557 F.3d at 1292.

Even if the Court were to consider Plaintiffs new material facts, they would not

change the Magistrate Judge's well-reasoned analysis and conclusion.

For example,

although Plaintiff declares "I was never in possession of any weapon," (doc. no. 108, p. 4),
that does not change Deputy Garner's reasonable beliefthat Plaintiffwas armed. See (doc.

no. 105, pp. 3, 14); Williams v. Deal 659 F. App'x 580, 597-98 (11th Cir. 2016), cert

denied. No. 16-937, 2017 WL 388097 (U.S. Mar. 20, 2017) ("If an officer reasonably, but
mistakenly, believes that one of the factors relevant to the merits of the constitutional

excessive-force claim is present, the officer is justified in using more force than in fact was
needed."). Moreover, even though Plaintiff declares "I ran to my Brother vehicle [sic] to

escape from being shot" and "I stop [sic] the vehicle then fled on foot to seek help," (doc. no.
108, pp. 3-4), this does not change that, under the circumstances as viewed from the

perspective of a reasonable officer, Plaintiff was attempting to evade arrest by flight. (See

doc. no. 105, p. 15.)

In sum, Plaintiff presents no new material facts undermining the

Magistrate Judge's Recommendation.

Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Defendants' objections, ADOPTS the Report

and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as its opinion, GRANTS Defendant's motion

for summary judgment (doc. no. 82), CLOSES this civil action, and DIRECTS the Clerk to
enter final judgment in favor of Defendants.

SO ORDERED this ci^W of cAtJ^OJ^ ,2017, at Augusta, Georgia.

JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
fHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA