Kinkade v. City of Weiser et al

Filing 72

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation entered on January 23, 2018 (Dkt. 70 ) is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY. Accordingly, (1) Defendants Motion for Partial Summary Judgment regar ding the false arrest claim against Defendants Hathorn and Maxfield (Dkt. 41 ) is GRANTED and (2) Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment regarding all claims against the City of Weiser and Chief Moon (Dkt. 55 ) is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Edward J. Lodge. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (cjs)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

CARRIE ANN KINKADE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CITY OF WEISER, BRANDON
HATHORN, individually, JASON
MAXFIELD, individually, and CHIEF
GREG MOON,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:16-cv-00194-EJL
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION
(DKT. 70)

INTRODUCTION
On January 23, 2018, United States Magistrate Judge Candy W. Dale issued a
Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending that: (1) Defendants’ Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment regarding the claim of false arrest against Defendants Brandon
Hathorn and Jason Maxfield (Dkt. 41) be granted and (2) Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment regarding all claims against the City of Weiser and Chief Moon (Dkt. 55) also
be granted. Any party may challenge a magistrate judge’s proposed recommendation by
filing written objections to the Report within fourteen days after being served with a copy
of the same. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Civil Rule 72.1(b). No objections have been
filed and the matter is now ripe for the Court’s consideration. See Local Civ. R. 72.1(b)(2);
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION– P. 1

STANDARD OF REVIEW
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the findings and recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Where
the parties object to a report and recommendation, this Court “shall make a de novo
determination of those portions of the report which objection is made.” Id. Where,
however, no objections are filed, the district court need not conduct a de novo review.
The Ninth Circuit has interpreted the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) as
follows:
The statute [28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)] makes it clear that the district judge
must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo
if objection is made, but not otherwise…. to the extent de novo review is
required to satisfy Article III concerns, it need not be exercised unless
requested by the parties. Neither the Constitution nor the statute requires a
district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the
parties themselves accept as correct.
United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (quotations and
citations omitted); see also Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 993, 1000 & n.13 (9th Cir. 2005).
Further, to the extent that no objections are made, arguments to the contrary are
waived. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (objections are waived if they are
not filed within fourteen days of service of the Report and Recommendation). Thus,
“[w]hen no timely objection is filed, the Court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear
error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Advisory
Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 (citing Campbell v. United States Dist. Court, 501
F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)).

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION– P. 2

DISCUSSION
The complete procedural background and facts of this case are well articulated in
the Report and the Court incorporates the same in this Order. Plaintiff filed her Second
Amended Civil Rights Complaint against the Defendants on April 3, 2017. (Dkt. 4.)
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated her constitutional rights by using excessive force
and arresting her without probable cause (false arrest). (Id.) She makes her claims pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. §1983 and the Idaho Tort Claims Act. (Id.)
Defendants filed two summary judgment motions. (Dkts. 41, 55.) First, Defendants
seek to dismiss the false arrest claims against Defendants Hathorn and Maxfield based on
a state court magistrate judge’s finding of probable cause for Plaintiff’s arrest on the charge
of assault on a police officer. (Dkt. 41.) Second, Defendants seek to dismiss all claims
against Defendants, City of Weiser and Police Chief Moon, based on qualified immunity
and a failure to establish Monell liability. (Dkt. 55.)
This Court has reviewed the entire Report as well as the full record in this matter
for clear error and none has been found. Moreover, this Court is in agreement with the
Report’s recitation of the facts, discussion of the applicable law, analysis, reasoning, and
conclusions. For these reasons, the Court will adopt the Report and grant: (1) Defendants’
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment regarding the false arrest claim against Defendants
Hathorn and Maxfield (Dkt. 41) and (2) Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment
regarding all claims against the City of Weiser and Chief Moon (Dkt. 55).

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION– P. 3

ORDER
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and
Recommendation entered on January 23, 2018 (Dkt. 70) is ADOPTED IN ITS
ENTIRETY. Accordingly,
(1) Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment regarding the false arrest
claim against Defendants Hathorn and Maxfield (Dkt. 41) is GRANTED and
(2) Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment regarding all claims against the City
of Weiser and Chief Moon (Dkt. 55) is GRANTED.

DATED: February 16, 2018

_________________________
Edward J. Lodge
United States District Judge

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION– P. 4