J. L. v. Polson

Filing 285

ORDER denying 210 Plaintiff's Dispositive Motion to Determine Spoliation of Evidence and Appropriate Sanctions; adopting 223 Report and Recommendations; denying 240 Plaintiff's Motion for Appeal to Findings of Fact (Judicial Notice of Spoliation). Signed by District Judge Anthony J Trenga on 02/01/2018. (c/s to plaintiff pro se) (dvanm, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Alexandria Division

JAMES LINLOR,

Plaintiff,

Civil Action No. l:17-cv-0013 (AJT/JFA)

V.

MICHAEL POLSON

Defendant.

ORDER

On December 6, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued his Proposed Findings of Fact and
Recommendations [Doc. No. 223] with respect to Plaintiffs Dispositive Motion to Determine

Spoliation of Evidence and Appropriate Sanctions [Doc. No. 210] (the Motion"). On December
19, 2017, Plaintiff filed Plaintiffs Motion for Appeal to Findings of Fact (Judicial Notice of
Spoliation) [Doc. No. 240] (the "Objections"), which the Court has construed as objections to the

Magistrate Judge's Proposed Findings of Fact and Recommendations pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(2). On January 3, 2018, Defendant filed his Memorandum of Law in Opposition to

Plaintiffs Motion for Appeal to Finding of Fact (Judicial Notice of Spoliation) [Doc. No. 260]
("Opposition").
In the Objections, Plaintiff makes various allegations against Defendant, non-party
Transportation Security Administration ("TSA"), and TSA manager William Whetsell related to
their duty to preserve evidence. Specifically, Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge's Proposed
Findings of Fact and Recommendations on the grounds that the Magistrate Judge's analysis did
not consider: (1) the relevant case law, (2) material misrepresentations made in court filings by

Defendant and non-party T ransportatio n Security Admini stratio n ("TSA"), and (3) the
o bligatio ns of '·Spoilato rs" to preserve evidence.
The Court has rev iewed de nova the record perta ining to Pla intiffs O bj ectio ns and finds
that the Magistrate's proposed findin gs of fact arc fully suppo rted by the record and re fl ect its
own findings based o n that de nova rev iew. It a lso conc ludes that the Magistrate Judge's
recommendati ons reflect the Court's own conclusions fo llowing its de novo review of the
Objections as the appropriate di sposition of Plaintiff's Motio n. For these reasons, the Court
adopts and incorporates by re ference herein the Magistrate Judge's Pro posed Findin gs of Fact
and Recommendations [Doc. No. 223 ]. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that Plaintifr s Moti on fo r A ppeal to Findings o f Fact (Judicial Notice of
Spoliation) [Doc. No. 240] be, and the same hereby are, DEN IE D and the o bj ectio ns contained
therein OVERRULED; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff's Dispositi ve Motion to Determ ine Spoliatio n of Evidence and
Appropriate Sanctions [Doc. No. 2 1OJ be and the same hereby is, DENIED.
The Clerk is directed to forward copies o f this O rder to all counse l o f reco rd and to the

pro se Plainti ff.

Alexandria, Vi rgi nia
February I , 20 18