Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_14-cv-02090/USCOURTS-azd-4_14-cv-02090-3/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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

George Allen Hartman, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

United States Customs and Border 

Protection, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-14-02090-TUC-DCB (BGM)

ORDER 

 Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint asserts a battery claim based on the 

Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). “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.” (Order (Doc. 38) at 1.) 

 This Court previously required the Plaintiff to disclose an expert who would attest 

to a causal link between the battery and the motorcycle accident. When he failed to 

produce such an expert, the Government filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on 

its liability for Plaintiff’s motorcycle accident injuries. Plaintiff failed to file a Response 

to the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. On March 7, 2016, the Government filed a 

Case 4:14-cv-02090-DCB-BGM Document 77 Filed 09/13/16 Page 1 of 4
- 2 - 

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 

motion asking this Court to rule summarily, pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(i), to grant the 

Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. 

 Under Rule 7.2(i) of this Court's Local Rules of Practice, a failure to file a 

responsive pleading may be deemed consent to the motion and this Court may dispose of 

the motion summarily. “A motion for summary judgment cannot be granted simply 

because the opposing party violated a local rule.” Marshall v. Gates, 44 F.3d 722, 725 

(9th Cir. 1995) (citing Henry v. Gill Industries Inc., 983 F.2d 943, 950 (9th Cir. 1993). 

This is so because a party may oppose a motion for summary judgment without offering 

affidavits or any other materials in support of its opposition. “‘Summary judgment may 

be resisted and must be denied on no other grounds than that the movant has failed to 

meet its burden of demonstrating the absence of triable issues.’” Id. at 106 (quoting 

Henry, 983 F.2d at 950). 

 Here, the Court has reviewed the Second Amended Complaint and considered the 

merits of the Government’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. As Magistrate Judge 

MacDonald noted in his Report and Recommendation (R&R), the Plaintiff will have the 

burden of persuasion at trial. The Government has challenged the sufficiency of his 

evidence to establish a causal connection between the alleged battery and the motorcycle 

accident. He has not responded. A trial would be useless as Plaintiff has no evidence to 

rebut the Government’s assertion that he cannot establish this essential element for 

liability related to the motorcycle accident. The Government is entitled to partial 

summary judgment as a matter of law. (R&R (Doc. 69) at 6.) 

 The Plaintiff was also afforded an opportunity to object to the Magistrate Judge’s 

recommendation that this Court grant the Government’s Motion for Partial Summary 

Judgment. Plaintiff did not file an Objection. .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) ("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 

Case 4:14-cv-02090-DCB-BGM Document 77 Filed 09/13/16 Page 2 of 4
- 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 

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). 

 While there are no objections and review has, therefore, been waived, the Court 

nevertheless reviews at a minimum, de novo, the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions of law. 

Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Turner v. Duncan, 158 

F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998) (conclusions of law by a magistrate judge reviewed de 

novo); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 1991) (failure to object standing 

alone will not ordinarily waive question of law, but is a factor in considering the 

propriety of finding waiver)). Here, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge’s 

recommendation to grant the Government partial summary judgment is thorough and 

well-reasoned, without any clear error in law or fact. See United States v. Remsing, 874 

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

Cir. 1989) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) as providing for district court to reconsider 

matters delegated to magistrate judge when there is clear error or recommendation is 

contrary to law). The Court finds that the Government’s motion for a summary ruling, 

pursuant to Rule 7.2(i), may be granted in respect to the motion for partial summary 

judgment on the question of the Government’s liability for the motorcycle accident. The 

Court remands this case to the ALJ for further consideration. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 

69). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendant’s Motion for Summary 

Disposition of the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, pursuant to Rule 7.2(i), (Doc. 

57), is GRANTED. 

Case 4:14-cv-02090-DCB-BGM Document 77 Filed 09/13/16 Page 3 of 4
- 4 - 

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 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary 

Judgment (Dc. 52) is GRANTED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s battery claim remains pending and 

the case remains referred to Magistrate Judge Bruce MacDonald. 

 Dated this 12th day of September, 2016. 

Honorable David C. Bury United States District Judge

Case 4:14-cv-02090-DCB-BGM Document 77 Filed 09/13/16 Page 4 of 4