Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_14-cv-02090/USCOURTS-azd-4_14-cv-02090-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

George Allen Hartman, 

Plaintiff,

v.

United States Customs and Border Protection , et

al., 

Defendants, _______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 14-2090 TUC DCB

O R D E R

On June 30, 2015, the Honorable Charles R. Pyle, United States Magistrate Judge, filed

a Report and Recommendation in this action. The Report and Recommendation advised this

Court that the parties agreed to dismissal of all the Plaintiff's claims, except for his Federal Tort

Claims Act (FTC) claim of battery brought against the Defendant, the United States of America.

Plaintiff alleges that on April 11, 2011, he was physically injured during an encounter with

federal agents from United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP) or United States

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Plaintiff alleges he suffered a severe head injury

diagnosed as a post-concussive syndrome that resulted in episodes over the following year of

passing out, hearing and sight problems, and forgetting things, and resulted in his passing out

while riding his motorcycle on April 12, 2012.

The Magistrate Judge directed Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint to omit allegations

pertaining to the dismissed claims and to disclose an expert opinion establishing a causal link

between the battery claim and the April 12-motorcycle accident.

The parties were sent copies of the R&R and instructed that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(b), they had 14 days to file written objections to the R&R. See also, Federal Rule of Civil

Case 4:14-cv-02090-DCB-BGM Document 38 Filed 09/30/15 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

Procedure 72(b) (party objecting to the recommended disposition has ten (10) days to file

specific, written objections). To date, no such objections have been filed.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), this Court makes a de novo determination as to those

portions of the R&R to which there are objections. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) ("A judge of the

court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed

findings and recommendations to which objection is made.") To the extent that no objection

has been made, arguments to the contrary have been waived. McCall v. Andrus, 628 F.2d 1185,

1187 (9th Cir. 1980) (failure to object to Magistrate's report waives right to do so on appeal); see

also, Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 (citing Campbell v. United States Dist.

Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974) (when no timely objection is filed, the court need only

satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the

recommendation).

The Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that the Court approve

the parties’ agreements to dismissal of claims, that the Plaintiff file an amended complaint, and

that he disclose a medical expert’s opinion linking the battery to the motorcycle accident. The

Court considers the R&R to be thorough and well-reasoned; it is neither clearly erroneous nor

contrary to law. United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617-618 (9th Cir. 1989). It shall,

therefore, be accepted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court adopts it. For the reasons

stated in the R&R, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s claims except for the FTCA battery claim and

directs the Plaintiff to comply with the directives from the Magistrate Judge, including filing

an Amended Complaint.

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 22) is adopted as the

opinion of the Court. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 12)

is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, as follows: 1) granted as to the First through

Third and Fifth through Ninth Causes of Action are dismissed with prejudice; 2) granted as to

all Defendants except the United States of America, with Defendants CBP, ICE, United States

Case 4:14-cv-02090-DCB-BGM Document 38 Filed 09/30/15 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

Department of Homeland Security, and Unknown Named Agents John Does 1-10 being

dismissed, and 3) Plaintiff has leave to file an Amended Complaint.

DATED this 30th day of September, 2015.

Case 4:14-cv-02090-DCB-BGM Document 38 Filed 09/30/15 Page 3 of 3