White v. Hines et al, No. 5:2019cv00750 - Document 19 (N.D. Ala. 2020)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION - Having reviewed and considered the materials in the court file, including the report and recommendation, the Court adopts the report and accepts the magistrate judge's recommendation. The Court enters judgment for the defend ants on Mr. White's official capacity claims. The Court denies the defendants' motion for summary judgment as to Mr. White's excessive force claims against the defendants in their individual capacities. This Court refers this matter to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 12/16/2020. (KEK)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
White v. Hines et al Doc. 19 FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHEASTERN DIVISION ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) LIEUTENANT ERIC W. HINES, and ) OFFICER SCOTT A. SCHUTTINGA, ) ) Defendants. ) 2020 Dec-16 AM 09:49 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA REGINALD WHITE, JR., Case No. 5:19-cv-00750-MHH-HNJ MEMORANDUM OPINION The magistrate judge filed a report on November 23, 2020, recommending the defendants’ special report be treated as a motion for summary judgment and further recommending that the motion be granted in part and denied in part. (Doc. 18). Although the parties were advised of their right to file written objections within 14 days, the Court has not received objections. A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). A district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [magistrate judge’s] report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also FED. R. CRIM. P. 59(b)(3) (“The district judge must consider de novo any objection to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.”). A district court’s obligation to “‘make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to Dockets.Justia.com which objection is made,’” 447 U.S. at 673 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)), requires a district judge to “‘give fresh consideration to those issues to which specific objection has been made by a party,’” 447 U.S. at 675 (quoting House Report No. 94-1609, p. 3 (1976)). United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667 (1980) (emphasis in Raddatz). Although § 636(b)(1) “does not require the [district] judge to review an issue de novo if no objections are filed, it does not preclude further review by the district judge, sua sponte or at the request of a party, under a de novo or any other standard.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154 (1985). That is because for dispositive issues, like habeas petitions, “the ultimate adjudicatory determination is reserved to the district judge.” Raddatz, 447 U.S. at 675. Having reviewed and considered the materials in the court file, including the report and recommendation, the Court adopts the report and accepts the magistrate judge’s recommendation. The Court enters judgment for the defendants on Mr. White’s official capacity claims. The Court denies the defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to Mr. White’s excessive force claims against the defendants in their individual capacities. This Court refers this matter to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. DONE and ORDERED this December 15, 2020. _________________________________ MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
