HILL v. KLOUS

• Court: District Court, N.D. Florida
• Decided: March 21, 2022
• Docket: 3:21-cv-01190
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PENSACOLA DIVISION

MICHAEL WAYNE HILL, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 3:21cv1190-LC-HTC

CHIP ANDREW KLOUS,

Defendant. __________________________/

ORDER

The magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation on October 13, 2021 (ECF No. 4), recommending dismissal based on lack of subject-matter

jurisdiction. Plaintiff was furnished a copy of the Report and Recommendation and afforded an opportunity to file Objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). Plaintiff responded by filing an Amended Complaint

(Doc. 9) and a Notice of Information (Doc. 10), both of which the Court construes as Objections to the Report and Recommendation. Case No. 3:21cv1190-LC-HTC Having considered the Report and Recommendation and conducted a de

novo review of the construed Objections filed thereto, the Court determines that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted. In so finding, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s proposed Amended Complaint identifies as an additional Defendant a police officer who arrived on the scene of the incident in question but evidently

did not arrest Defendant Chip Klous, the only Defendant initially named in the Complaint. A public official or agency has no affirmative constitutional duty to a member of the public to investigate or intervene on an alleged crime. United

States v. Spence, 719 F.2d 358, 361 (11th Cir.1983); see also DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dep’t of Soc. Serv., 489 U.S. 189, 195–97, 109 S. Ct. 998, 103 L. Ed. 2d 249 (1989) (holding that Due Process Clause generally does not impose affirmative duty on states to aid or protect their citizens). There is no general

constitutional right to police protection. Watson v. City of Kansas City, 857 F.2d 690, 695 (10th Cir.1988); Wright v. City of Ozark, 715 F.2d 1513, 1516 (11th Cir.1983). Thus, Plaintiff’s claims against the officer would equally provide no

actionable basis for a Section 1983 claim. Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 4) is adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.

Case No. 3:21cv1190-LC-HTC 2. This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction. 3. The clerk of court is directed to close this case. ORDERED on this 21st day of March, 2022.

s/L.A. Collier Lacey A. Collier Senior United States District Judge

Case No. 3:21cv1190-LC-HTC