Addison v. Haynes et al

Filing 76

ORDER ADOPTING the Magistrate Judge's 67 Report and Recommendations, and Denying Defendants' 55 Motion to Dismiss. Defendants' Objections are Overruled. The Court will rule on the government's motion for summary judgment. Signed by Chief Judge Lisa G. Wood on 3/18/2015. (csr)

1n the Wnfteb Otatto )ttrttt Court
for the Ooutbern 38imarta of georsta
J6runftftk;0ibWion
SEAN ROBERT ADDISON,
Plaintiff,
VS.

JOSEPH ARNETT; JERUMY BOWEN;
STEPHEN PICKETT; WAYNE
MOSELEY; and MARK WOLFORT,
Defendants.

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

CV 213-71

ORDER

On May 30, 2014, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and
Recommendation in this case, recommending that the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss be denied as the Federal Tort Claims Act
("FTCA") judgment bar did not clearly apply. Dkt. No. 67.
Defendants filed Objections, Dkt. No. 69, and Plaintiff filed a
Response to those Objections. Dkt. No. 73. After an
independent and de novo review of the entire record, the
undersigned ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation, with the modification noted below. Defendants'
Objections are OVERRULED, and in accordance with the Report and
Recommendation ("R&R"), Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.

1
AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)

The R&R concurs with the Second Circuit's decision in
Hallock v. Bonner, 387 F.3d 147 (2d Cir. 2004). Dkt. No. 67, p.
6. The R&R bases its agreement, in part, on the fact that the
Eleventh Circuit has not definitively decided whether dismissal
of an FTCA suit based on procedural grounds would bar subsequent
Bivens claims. Because the dismissal judgment in Plaintiff's
previous FTCA suit was based on procedural grounds as opposed to
on the merits, the R&R found that Plaintiff's Bivens claims
should not be barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2676. Id. (describing
Addison v. United States, No. CV 211-176, 2012 WL 2863434, at *4
(S.D. Ga. Apr. 16, 2012), adopted by Addison v. United States,
No. CV 211-176, 2012 WL 2862223 (S.D. Ga. July 11, 2012)). The
reason the judgment bar is inapplicable, however, is not because
the previous dismissal judgment was procedural rather than
merits-based. The Hallock court found that procedural defects
can lead to application of the judgment bar in cases properly
pleaded under the FTCA. 387 F.3d at 155. The judgment bar does
not apply to a case dismissed pursuant to an exception set forth
in 28 U.S.C. § 2680; this is not because the dismissal judgment
was procedural rather than merits-based, but rather because the
action was not properly brought under the FTCA. Id. ("an action
brought under the FTCA and dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction because it falls within an exception to the
restricted waiver of sovereign immunity provided by the FTCA
AO 72A

(Rev. 8/82)

2

does not result in a 'judgment in an action under [the
FTCA].'")
The Court will rule on the government's motion for summary
judgment.
SO ORDERED, this 18TH day of March, 2015.

LISA GODBEY WOOD, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)

3