Pearson v. Watson ( 2020 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION ANDRE PEARSON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) CIV. ACT. NO. 1:18-cv-379-TFM-MU ) OFFICER JEREMY WATSON, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On October 20, 2020, the Magistrate Judge entered a report and recommendation which recommends Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment be granted. See Doc. 32. Plaintiff timely filed objections and also files a motion for discovery and document production. See Docs. 33, 34. The Court has reviewed the report and recommendation, objections, and conducted a de novo review of the case file. For the reasons discussed below, the objections are OVERRULED and the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED. Plaintiff’s objections do not raise new information and also requests the Court require lie detectors from all parties. See Doc. 33. None of Plaintiff’s allegations in his Complaint offset the well-reasoned analysis by the Magistrate Judge. Rather, he now seems to frame his allegations as some kind of deliberate illegal conspiracy by the Defendants as opposed to the allegations originally made in his Complaint and first response to summary judgment (Doc. 21) which focused on negligent failure to properly perform their jobs and protect the Plaintiff. In reviewing a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the Court need not consider objections based on arguments not raised before the magistrate judge. See Williams v. McNeil, 557 F.3d 1287, 1292 (11th Cir. 2009). Further, none of his unsworn objections counter the sworn evidence presented by the Defendants in their motion for summary judgment. After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to the issues raised, and a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objection is made, it is ORDERED as follows: (1) Plaintiff’s objections (Doc. 33) are OVERRULED; (2) The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 32) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court; (3) The Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 13) is GRANTED; (4) Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED with prejudice; (5) All remaining motions are DENIED as moot. Final judgment shall issue separately in accordance with this order and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58. DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of December, 2020. /s/Terry F. Moorer TERRY F. MOORER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE