Holmes v. Martins

• Court: District Court, S.D. Florida
• Decided: January 31, 2024
• Docket: 2:22-cv-14125
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

SUONUITTEHDE RSTNA DTIESTS RDIICSTTR OIFC TF LCOORUIRDTA FORT PIERCE DIVISION

CASE NO. 22-14125-CIV-CANNON/McCabe

CAMERON HOLMES,

Plaintiff, v.

SERGEANT MARTINS,

Defendant. /

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF No. 51] THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation (“Report”) issued by Magistrate Judge Ryon M. McCabe on January 3, 2024 [ECF No. 51]. On September 28, 2023, Defendant Martens1 filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (“Motion”) [ECF No. 30]. Following referral, Judge McCabe thereafter issued the instant Report, recommending that the Motion be granted [ECF No. 51]. Plaintiff did not file objections to the Report or request an extension of time to do so.2 Upon review, the Court ACCEPTS the Report [ECF No. 30] and GRANTS Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 30]. LEGAL STANDARDS A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Those portions of the report and recommendation to which objections are made are accorded de novo review if those objections “pinpoint the specific findings that the party disagrees with.” United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 2009); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Any portions of the report and recommendation to which

1 Defendant states that her correct name is Sara Infuso-Martens [ECF No. 30 p. 1].

2 Plaintiff’s objections were due on or before January 17, 2024 [ECF No. 51 p. 10]. no specific objections are made are reviewed only for clear error. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”); Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). DISCUSSION “Qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Vinyard v. Wilson, 311 F.3d 1340, 1346 (11th Cir. 2002) (quotation omitted). Qualified immunity applies only to state actors in the

performance of their official “discretionary functions.” Holloman ex rel. Holloman v. Harland, 370 F.3d 1252, 1263-64 (11th Cir. 2004). Here, Plaintiff does not dispute the Report’s conclusion that Defendant was engaged in a discretionary function [ECF No. 51 p. 7 (citing ECF No. 1 pp. 5– 7)]. This conclusion is not erroneous. Arn, 474 U.S. at 150. Once a Court finds a discretionary function, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate that qualified immunity does not apply. Harland, 370 F.3d at 1263–64. To meet this burden, Plaintiff must satisfy a two-step test: (1) he must show that Defendant committed a constitutional violation, and (2) he must show the constitutional right at issue was “clearly established” at the time of the violation. Id. To satisfy the second step, “the defendant must have fair notice of his conduct’s unconstitutionality, which derives from one of the following sources: (1) the obvious

clarity of constitutional or statutory language; (2) broad holdings or statements of principle in case law that are not tied to particularized facts; or (3) fact-specific judicial precedents that are not fairly distinguishable.” Eloy v. Guillot, 289 F. App’x 339, 346 (11th Cir. 2008) (citing Wilson, 311 F.3d at 1350–52). Here, Plaintiff does not dispute the Report’s conclusion that Plaintiff fails to show that Defendant committed a “clearly established” violation of his Eighth Amendment rights CASE NO. 22-14125-CIV-CANNON/MCCABE [ECF No. 51 p. 8]. Defendant played no role and made no recommendations regarding the decision to release Plaintiff into general population [ECF No. 29 p. 3]. Inmate Kelly knew of Plaintiffs gang affiliation independently of Defendant’s alleged remarks to other inmates [ECF No. 29-1 pp. 66, 92]. The Report’s conclusion that “Plaintiff has not shown ‘clearly established’ violations of constitutional law” is not erroneous. Arn, 474 U.S. at 150. Therefore, after conducting a review of the Report and the record, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge McCabe’s recommendation to grant Defendant Martens’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows: (1) Magistrate Judge McCabe’s Report [ECF No. 51] is ACCEPTED. (2) Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 30] is GRANTED. (3) Final Judgment to issue by separate order. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida this 31st day of January 2024.

AILEE CANNON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE CC: Counsel of record Cameron A. Holmes J41899 Charlotte Correctional Institution Inmate Mail/Parcels 33123 Oil Well Road Punta Gorda, Florida 33955 PRO SE