Anderson v. Dauphin County Adult Probation Office et al

Filing 81

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Saporitos Report and Recommendation 77 , is ADOPTED. Defendant Waltons motion 62 for summary judgment and amended motion 67 forsummary judgment are GRANTED and the Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendant Walton, and close the case. Signed by Honorable Yvette Kane on 5/18/17. (rw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
WARREN D. ANDERSON,
Plaintiff
v.
DAUPHIN COUNTY ADULT
PROBATION OFFICE, et al.,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

No. 1:15-CV-878
(Judge Kane)
(Magistrate Judge Saporito)

ORDER
THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:
On May 6, 2015, Plaintiff Warren D. Anderson, an inmate incarcerated at the State
Correctional Institution at Camp Hill, filed this civil action asserting Fourth Amendment
unreasonable search and excessive force claims and an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No. 1.) Anderson also asserted supplemental state law
claims for unreasonable search and seizure under the Pennsylvania Constitution and official
oppression under a Pennsylvania criminal statute. (Id.) Pursuant to a February 26, 2016 Order
of this Court, all claims against all Defendants, with the exception of Defendant Walton, were
dismissed for failure to state a claim. (Doc. No. 50.) Accordingly, only Anderson’s Fourth
Amendment excessive force claim against Defendant Walton remains pending. (Id.)
This action arises out of an incident that occurred in May 2013, when officers from the
Dauphin County Adult Probation Office, the Dauphin County Sheriff’s Department, and the
Lower Paxton Police Department sought to execute an arrest warrant on an individual named
Kevin Ramos, who they believed resided at 2308 Orange Street in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, the
home where Anderson resided. After the officers entered the home, they searched upstairs and
1

found Anderson in the bathroom, where the officers later claimed to have observed him flushing
illegal narcotics down the toilet. (Doc. No. 68-4.) Anderson was handcuffed and taken
downstairs where he was instructed to sit on the couch. (Doc. No. 68-3 at 57-58.) In his
affidavit, Defendant Walton stated that “[a]s Anderson was detained it became obvious that he
placed illegal narcotics in his mouth in an effort to either swallow or secrete the illegal drugs.”
(Doc. No. 68-4 at 1.) Walton stated that Anderson failed to comply with Walton’s directive to
spit the drugs out of his mouth. (Id. at 1-2.) Upon Anderson’s failure to comply, Walton
discharged the Taser three times into Anderson’s stomach. (Id. at 2, 3, 4, 6, 8.) Subsequently,
Anderson spit several cocaine packets out of his mouth. (Doc. No. 68-3 at 66-72, 82, 98.)
Anderson asserts a Fourth Amendment excessive force claim against Walton arising out of his
discharge of his Taser three times into Anderson’s stomach while Anderson was handcuffed and
sitting on the couch. (Doc. No. 1.)
Now before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Saporito
addressing a motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 62), and amended motion for summary
judgment (Doc. No. 67), filed by Defendant Walton. (Doc. No. 77.) In his Report and
Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Saporito recommends granting summary judgment in favor
of Defendant Walton, as he finds that, despite the existence of genuine issues of material fact as
to whether Defendant Walton’s actions were objectively reasonable under the circumstances,
Walton is nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity, as it was not “clearly established” that a
police officer may not discharge his Taser on an uncooperative handcuffed arrestee who refuses
to comply with a justifiable law enforcement objective (that is, searching Anderson’s mouth to
prevent him from destroying contraband or harming himself) after multiple warnings. (Id. at 16-

2

17.)
Anderson has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. (Doc. No. 78).
Specifically, Anderson objects to Magistrate Judge Saporito’s finding that Defendant Walton is
entitled to qualified immunity, on the basis that Defendant Walton’s actions violated a clearly
established constitutional right of which a reasonable officer would have been aware.1 (Id. at 23.) Having considered this filing, the Court finds that Magistrate Judge Saporito correctly and
comprehensively addressed the substance of Anderson’s objection in the Report and
Recommendation. (Doc. No. 77.) Accordingly, the Court will not write separately to address
Plaintiff’s objection.
AND SO, upon independent review of the record and applicable law, on this 18th day of
May 2017, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1.

Magistrate Judge Saporito’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 77), is
ADOPTED;

2.

Defendant Walton’s motion for summary judgment and amended motion for
summary judgment (Doc. Nos. 62, 67), are GRANTED; and

1

The Court notes that on May 11, 2017, while Magistrate Judge Saporito’s Report and
Recommendation, and Anderson’s objections thereto, were pending before this Court, Anderson
filed a document entitled “Notice of Appeal,” wherein he purports to appeal Magistrate Judge
Saporito’s Report and Recommendation. (Doc. No. 79.) As appeals can only be taken from
final decisions of a district court (see 28 U.S.C. § 1291), except in very limited circumstances
not applicable here (see 28 U.S.C. § 1292), Anderson’s “Notice of Appeal” is a legal nullity.
Thus, the Court construes the filing as a second, albeit untimely, objection to Magistrate Judge
Saporito’s Report and Recommendation. See Local Rule 72.3. As this second objection asserts
only a general objection to the conclusion of Magistrate Judge Saporito’s Report and
Recommendation, it raises no new issues for the Court’s consideration.
3

3.

The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendant Walton,
and close the case.

s/ Yvette Kane
Yvette Kane, District Judge
United States District Court
Middle District of Pennsylvania

4