Wynn v. Schmidt et al

Filing 50

Judge Richard G. Stearns: ENDORSED ORDER entered. ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Action on motion: ; adopting Report and Recommendations re 48 Report and Recommendations.; granting 33 Motion for Summary JudgmentFor the foregoing rea sons, the Recommendation is ADOPTED, the motion for summary judgement is ALLOWED, and the Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. The Clerk will enter a judgment with prejudice for defendants and close the case. (Attachments: # 1 Report and Recommendations)(Caruso, Stephanie)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-10190-RGS
MICHAEL WYNN,
Plaintiff
v.
HARRISON SCHMIDT, and
GREGORY LENNON,
Defendants
ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
September 20, 2017
STEARNS, D.J.
I agree with Magistrate Judge Dein=s careful analysis of the record and
her conclusions that: (1) the federal §1983 civil rights claim is defeated by
qualified immunity; and (2) that the state malicious prosecution and
intentional infliction of emotional distress claims fail on their merits.
This case well illustrates the aphorism that probable cause does not
require that police prove right in every case.

As the Supreme Court

observed long ago, “[w]hen the constitutional validity of an arrest is
challenged, it is the function of a court to determine whether the facts
available to the officers at the moment of the arrest would ‘warrant a man of

reasonable caution in the belief’ that an offense has been committed.” Beck
v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 96 (1964). And I do not understand plaintiff to argue
otherwise.

Whether the police acted lawfully in persisting in the

prosecution after learning of the contradictory GPS data is a closer question,
but I agree with Magistrate Judge Dein that the court need go no further than
her qualified immunity analysis. I also agree that the state law claims fail
for a want of a showing of the malicious state of mind required to support a
malicious prosecution claim, see Conway v. Smerling, 37 Mass, App. Ct. 1, 3
(1994), and for the failure to meet the “extreme and outrageous” standard
required as a matter of law to sustain a claim of intentional infliction of
emotional distress, see Sena v. Commonwealth, 417 Mass, 250, 264 (1994).
For the foregoing reasons, the Recommendation is ADOPTED, the
motion for summary judgement is ALLOWED, and the Complaint is
DISMISSED with prejudice. The Clerk will enter a judgment with prejudice
for defendants and close the case.1
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Richard G. Stearns
________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
I note that Wynn has not filed an Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation.
1

2