Strepka v. Sailors
| Decision Date | 02 July 2007 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 05-cv-02546-WYD-CBS. |
| Parties | Mark Alan STREPKA, Plaintiff(s), v. Matthew SAILORS; and Mike Williams, Defendant(s). |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Colorado |
Mark Alan Strepka, Delta, CO, pro se.
Elliot Jude Scott, Eric Michael Ziporin, Senter, Goldfarb & Rice, LLC, Denver, CO, for Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
THIS MATTER is before the Court on (1) Plaintiff's Second Summary Judgment Motion, filed February 26, 2007 (docket # 66); (2) Defendant Sailors' Motion for Summary Judgment, filed February 28, 2007 (docket # 71); and (3) Defendant Williams' Motion for Summary Judgment, filed February 28, 2007 (docket # 73). These motions were referred to Magistrate Judge Shaffer for recommendation by Order of Reference dated March 22, 2006, and various memoranda.
A Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge was issued on May 2, 2007 ("Recommendation"). The Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); FED. R.Civ.P. 72(b). Magistrate Judge Shaffer recommends therein that Defendant Sailors' motion for summary judgment be granted as to Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages, and denied in all other respects. Specifically, Magistrate Judge Shaffer found that issues of fact surrounding whether Sailors' initial detention of Plaintiff was justified precluded summary judgment in Sailors' favor. In addition, Magistrate Judge Shaffer recommended that Defendant Williams' motion for summary judgment be granted and judgment enter in favor of Defendant Williams and against Plaintiff, and that Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment be denied. Recommendation at 18. Magistrate Judge Shaffer advised the parties that specific written objections were due within ten (10) days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation. Id. at 20-21. On May 14, 2007, Defendant Sailors filed a Limited Objection to Magistrate's Proposed Findings and Recommendation (docket # 96). On May 29, 2007, Magistrate Judge Shaffer granted Plaintiff an additional ten days to object to the Recommendation. To date, Plaintiff has not filed any objection to the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation.
Plaintiff Mark Alan Strepka, acting pro se, commenced this civil action on December 5, 2005. He asserts claims against Defendants Matthew Sailors and Mike Williams pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging Fourth Amendment violations arising from a traffic stop and subsequent search of his vehicle on December 20, 2003 in Sheridan, Colorado. Both Defendants are officers with the Sheridan Police Department. On the evening of the incident, Defendants accused Plaintiff of speeding and driving under the influence of an alcoholic beverage, arrested him and searched his personal property.
The following facts surrounding the incident are not in dispute. On December 20, 2003, Defendant Sailors was on duty as an officer with the Sheridan Police Department when he observed Plaintiff driving southbound on Lowell Blvd. Recommendation at 3. Sailors followed Plaintiff's car as it turned east and parked on West Milan Avenue. Sailors approached Plaintiff's car and requested Plaintiff produce his driver's license and registration. Id. at 4. Plaintiff provided his license and registration after several requests, and Sailors characterized his behavior as "angry and erratic." Id. Defendant Williams arrived on the scene, and he and Sailors observed a light odor of alcohol from the vehicle and noticed that Plaintiffs eyes were bloodshot and watery. Id. Upon questioning, Plaintiff admitted to having one beer. Id. at 5. When Williams shone his flashlight in Plaintiffs face to look for signs of intoxication, Plaintiff reached for Williams' flashlight. At that time, Sailors restrained Plaintiff and conducted a pat-down search during which he discovered a bundle located in an inside jacket pocket. Sailors instructed Plaintiff not to put his hand in the pocket, but Plaintiff pushed Sailors' hand away and reached inside the pocket. Id. Plaintiff was then arrested and placed in handcuffs. Sailors discovered eight plastic baggies of what was later identified as crystalline methamphetamine inside Plaintiffs pocket. Id. at 5. Plaintiff was subsequently charged with unlawful possession of a controlled substance. Id. at 6. The charge was dismissed on February 24, 2005. Id.
When no objections to a Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge have been filed, I am vested with discretion to review the Recommendation "under any standard [I] deem[]appropriate." Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir.1991); see also Thomas v. Ara, 474 U.S. 140, 150, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985) (). Although I am not required to do so, I review the portions of the Recommendation to which there are no objection to "satisfy [my]self that there is no clear error on the face of the record."1 See 72(b) Advisory. Committee Notes. Here, no party has objected to the portions of the Recommendation granting Defendant Williams' motion for summary judgment and denying Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment. Nor has any party objected to the portion of the Recommendation dismissing Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages. Having reviewed the Recommendation, I am satisfied that there is no clear error on the face of the record with regard to these portions of the recommendation. I agree with Magistrate Judge Shaffer's conclusion that Defendant Williams had probable cause to believe that Plaintiff was involved in criminal activity and acted reasonably in arresting Plaintiff and searching his vehicle and, as such, is entitled to qualified immunity in this case. Recommendation at 10-13. I also agree with Magistrate Judge Shaffer's conclusion that the record contains no evidence of punitive damages and that Plaintiff's claims for punitive damages should be dismissed. Recommendation at 13-14.
However, Defendant Sailors filed a timely Objection to the portion of the Recommendation denying his motion for summary judgment and finding that he is not entitled to qualified immunity at this time because the issue of whether his initial detention of Plaintiff was justified at its inception "is an issue of disputed fact that remains to be determined at a later stage of this litigation." Recommendation at 6-9. The Objection to this portion of the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation necessitates a de novo determination as to those specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made since the nature of the matter is dispositive. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
I now turn to Sailors' Objection to the portion of the Recommendation denying his motion for summary judgment based on the defense of qualified immunity.
Pursuant to rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court may grant summary judgment where "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the ... moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(c); see Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Equal Employment Opportunity Comm. v. Horizon/CMS Healthcare Corp., 220 F.3d 1184, 1190 (10th Cir.2000). "When applying this standard, [the court must] `view the evidence and draw all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment.'" Atl. Richfield Co. v. Farm Credit Bank of Wichita, 226 F.3d 1138, 1148 (10th Cir. 2000) (quotation omitted). "`Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment.'" Id. (quotation omitted).
"When the parties file cross motions for summary judgment, `we are entitled to assume that no evidence needs to be considered other than that filed by the parties, but summary judgment is nevertheless inappropriate if disputes remain as to material facts.'" Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Farm Credit Bank of Wichita, 226 F.3d 1138, 1148 (10th Cir.2000) (quotation omitted). Cross motions for summary judgment must be treated separately — the denial of one does not require the grant of another. Buell Cabinet v. Sudduth, 608 F.2d 431, 433 (10th Cir.1979) (cited Atlantic Richfield).
In Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), the Supreme Court held that government officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person should have known. Harlow places a presumption in favor of immunity of public officials acting in their individual capacities. Schalk v. Gallemore, 906 F.2d 491 (10th Cir.1990). Once the defense is raised by a defendant, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to come forward with facts or allegations sufficient to show both "`that the defendant's actions violated a constitutional or statutory right" and that the right "was clearly established at the time of the defendant's unlawful conduct." Medina v. Cram, 252 F.3d 1124, 1128 (10th Cir.2001) (quoting Albright v. Rodriguez, 51 F.3d 1531, 1534 (10th Cir.1995)). See also Workman v. Jordan, 32 F.3d 475, 479 (10th Cir.1994); Mick v. Brewer, 76 F.3d 1127, 1134 (10th Cir.1996). In his motion for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Goings v. City of Pittsburg
...self-incrimination occurs only if one has been compelled to be a witness against himself in a criminal case.'" Strepka v. Sailors, 494 F. Supp. 2d 1209, 1228 (D. Colo. 2007) (quoting Chavez, 538 U.S. at 770). An earlier Tenth Circuit decision supports all of these same propositions:The Cons......
-
Hastings v. Barbee
...or recommendations to which objections are being made, in order to preserve the issue for a de novo review. See Strepka v. Sailors, 494 F. Supp. 2d 1209, 1230 (D. Colo. 2007) (citing In re Griego, 64 F.3d 580, 583 (10th Cir.1995) ("A general objection that does not put the district court on......
-
Williams v. Donahoe
...and/or recommendations, to which objections are being made in order to preserve an issue for de novo review. See Strepka v. Sailors, 494 F. Supp. 2d 1209, 1230 (D. Colo. 2007) (citing In re Griego, 64 F.3d 580, 583 (10th Cir.1995) ("A general objection that does not put the district court o......
-
Strepka v. City of Denver
...to "sit on the curb" did not constitute an arrest on which an illegal arrest claim could plausibly be based. See Strepka v. Sailors, 494 F. Supp. 2d 1209, 1223 (D. Colo. 2007) (explaining what constitutes an investigatory detention" as opposed to an arrest). The Court therefore ADOPTS Magis......