FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT N ove m be r 15, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 12492 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 3 - 2 0 4 1 2 - CV - A SG D A N I E L C . G A M O , M I C H A E L A . M A G G I O , P la in tif f s - A p p e lla n ts , v ersu s U N I T E D S T A T E S , U N I T E D S T A T E S C U S T O M S S E R V I C E , T O M R O L A N D , J E F F R E Y B A L D W I N , J E R R Y L O N G , e t a l., D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( N ove m be r15, 2005) B efo re T JO F L A T , D U B IN A an dH U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

I n th i s c i v i l r i g h t s a c t i o n b r o u g h ta g a i n s tth e U n i t e dSt a t e s , th e U . S. Cu s t o ms S e rv i c e , a n dth r e e C u s t o m s S e rv i c e a g e n t s p u r s u a n tt o B i v e n s v . S i x Un k n o wn N a m e d A ge nt s of

F e de r a l B ur e au of

N a r c ot i c s , 403 U . S . 388, 91 S . C t . 1999, 29 L .E d .2 d6 1 9 ( 1 9 7 1 ) , th e F e d e r a l T o rt C la im s A c t ( “F T C A ” ) , 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 6 7 1 e t. s e q. , 42 U . S . C . §§ 1985, 1986, a nd 28 U . S . C . § 1367 c a s e , the di s tr i c tc ourt , rul i ng on defe nd ant s’ al t ernat i ve m ot i on s t o d i sm i ss and for sum m ary j ud gm ent , grant ed de f e nda nt s s um m a ryj udgm e nton C ount s I , I I , I V , V , V I , V I I , a nd V I I I of p la in tif f s ’ a m e n d e dc o m p la in t. S e e O r d e ro n M o tio n to D is m is s C o m p la in t o r , in th e a lte rn a tiv e , M o tio n f o rS u m m a ryJ u d g m e n t, d a te dF e b ru a ry2 8 , 2 0 0 5 . T h is d isp o se do f a ll o f p lain ti ff M ag g io ’s claim s. A s f o r C o u n t III , p lain ti ff

G am o ’s cl ai m for a ss aul tand b att ery, the courtconcl ud ed thatthatcoun tfa i l ed t o st at e a c la im f o rr e lie f . I d . T h e c o u rt g a v e G a m o le a v e to a m e n dC o u n t I I I b yad a te ce rt ai n so t o i dent i fythe pers on s w ho al l egedl y c om m i tt ed the as saul tand b att ery and the const i tut i on al ri gh t s purpo rt edl y i nfri ng ed. T he court ’ s orderst at ed that G am o’ s f

ai l ure t o am end C ou ntII I w ou l d res ul ti n a di sm i ss al w i tho utfurther not i c e . I d. G a m o f

a i l e d t o a m e nd C ountI I I . T he c ourtthe r e f or e di s m i s s e d the ca se w i th p re

j ud i ce , ent er i ng fi nal j ud gm entfor def endant s on al l cl ai m s. S ee O r d e rD i s mi s s i n g Ca s e i n i t s En t i r e ty , d a t e dM a r c h 2 5 , 2 0 0 5 . M a g g i o a n dG a mo n o w ap p e a l.3

P l a i nt i f f s ’ a m e nde d c om pl a i nta s s e rt e d c l a i m s f orf a l s e a rr e s ta nd i m p ri so n m en tan di l l eg al search o f p l ai n t i ffs’ p erso n s an dsei zu re o f th ei r cu rren cy, i n vi ol a t i on of

the F ourth A m e ndm e nt ; a s s aul ta nd ba tt e ryupon pl a i nt i f f G a m o; d e p r iv a tio n o f

p la in tif f s ’ p r o p e rtyw ith o u t d u e p r o c e s s , in v io la tio n o f th e F if th A m e n d m e n t; im p o s itio n o f e x c e s s iv e f

in e s , in v io la tio n o f

th e E ig h th A m e n d m e n t; conspi ra cyun der 42 U . S . C . § 1 98 5; and “ negl ec tt o p re vent ” unl aw ful ac t s und er 42 U . S . C . § 1986. P la in tif f s c o n te n dth a t s u m m a ryju d g m e n t w a s im p r o p e rb e c au s e d e f e n d a n ts di d n otfi l e aconci se st at em entof m at er i al fa ct s, and, al tho ug h there w er e di sput ed is s u e s o f m a te r ia l f

a c t, p la in tif

f s w e r e n o t r e q u ir e dto p o in t o u t th o s e d is p u te df a c ts b e c au s e th e d e f

e n d a n ts h a dn o t m e t th e irb u r d e n to s h o w th a t th e yw e r e e n title dto s um m a ryj udgm e nt . P l a i nt i f f s a l s o c ont e nd tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourtc oul d notgr a nt the m ot i on t o di s m i s s be c aus e i tc ons i de r e d m a tt e r s out s i de the pl e a di ngs a nd, m o r e o v e r , im p r o p e r lya c te da s af a c t f in d e r . W e f i nd no e rr ori n the m a nne ri n w hi c h the c ourtha ndl e d the m a tt e r . T he c ourtdi d noti m pr ope r l yc onve rtde f e nda nt s ’ m ot i on t o di s m i s s i nt o am ot i on f or sum m ary j ud gm entbecause def endant s’ m ot i on expl i ci t l y r el i ed on the sum m ary j ud gm entrul e, F ed. R . C i v. P . 56 . E ven i f w e w er e t o con cl ud e thatthe courtfa i l ed t o co m p l y w i th R u l e 5 6 ' s req u i rem en tth atth e n o n -m o v an tb e g i v en t en d ays’4

no t i ce of the court ’ s i nt ent i on t o t ake am ot i on for s um m ary j ud gm entun der a dvi s e m e nt , w e w oul d f i nd the e rr orha rm l e s s be c aus e pl a i nt i f f s w e r e w e l l a w a r e of de f e nda nt s ’ r e l i a nc e on R ul e 56, a s e vi de nc e d bythe a r gum e nt s the ym a de a nd the d o c u m e n ts th e ys u b m itte din r e s p o n s e to d e f e n d a n ts ’ m o tio n . I n thi s c a s e , the m a t e r i a l f a c t s a r e noti n di s put e ; he nc e , i tw a s r i pe f or sum m ary j ud gm entconsi dera t i on . T he qu es t i on thu s bec om es w hether the court erred i n g ran t i n g su m m ary j u d g m en t(as w el l as d efen d an t s’ m o t i o n t o d i sm i ss C o u n t I I I ) . T he di stri ctcourtdi sposi t i ve order of F ebruary28 , 20 05 , cont ai ns an a c c ur a t e s t a t e m e ntof

pl a i nt i f f s ’ c l a i m s a nd the appl i c abl e l a w . W e di s c e rn no erro r in th e c o u rt’s ap p li ca ti o n o f th at law to p lain ti ff s’ claim s. T h e c o u rt’s j udgm e nti s due t o be a f f i rm e d. AF F I R ME D.