I 

I 

I 

I 

\ 

1 

I 

I l 

~ 

' ! 

1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

GEORGE ALLEN SAVAGE, 

Plaintiff, Civ. No. 1:14-cv-01631-CL 

v. 

OPINION and ORDER 

JACKSON COUNTY, et al, 

Defendants. 

MCSHANE, Judge: 

Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke filed a Findings and Recommendation (ECF No. 43) 

and the matter is now before this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. 

After having reviewed the legal principles and the Plaintiffs Objections (ECF No. 45), I find no 

error and conclude it is correct. United States v. Bernhardt, 840 F .2d 1441, 1445 (9th Cir. 1998). 

For the following reasons, Judge Clarke's Findings and Recommendation is adopted in 

its entirety, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgement is granted, and Plaintiffs case is 

DISMISSED with prejudice. 

1 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 1:14-cv-01631-CL Document 47 Filed 07/14/16 Page 1 of 4
PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

On November 12, 2015, the Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgement (ECF 

No. 28). On the same day, the Plaintiff filed a competing Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 

As To Liability (ECF No. 33). On December 17, 2015 Judge Clarke heard oral arguments on the 

motions (ECF No. 41). On April 28, 2016, Judge Clarke filed a Findings and Recommendation 

(ECF No. 43), granting the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and denying the 

Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment As To Liability. On May 31, 2016, Plaintiff 

filed his Objections to Judge Clarke's Findings and Recommendation (ECF No. 45). On May 

13, 2016, the Defendants filed their Response to the Plaintiffs Objections (ECF No. 46). 

In his Findings and Recommendation, Judge Clarke found that the Plaintiff failed to show 

a genuine issue of material fact such that the case could proceed to trial, and recommended that 

Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment be granted and Plaintiffs case be dismissed with 

prejudice. (ECF No. 43). 

STANDARD OF REVIEW 

Summary judgment shall be granted when the record shows that there is no genuine 

dispute as to any material of fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of 

law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986). The 

moving party has the initial burden of showing that no genuine issue of material fact exists. 

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986); Devereaux v. Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070, 1076 

(9th Cir. 2001) (en bane). The court cannot weigh the evidence or determine the truth but may 

only determine whether there is a genuine issue of fact. Playboy Enters., Inc. v. Welles, 279 F.3d 

796, 800 (9th Cir. 2002). An issue of fact is genuine "if the evidence is such that a reasonable 

jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. 

2 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 1:14-cv-01631-CL Document 47 Filed 07/14/16 Page 2 of 4
When a properly supported motion for summary judgment is made, the burden shifts to 

the opposing party to set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Id at 

250. Conclusory allegations, unsupported by factual material, are insufficient to defeat a motion 

for summary judgment. Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). Instead, the 

opposing party must, by affidavit or as otherwise provided by Rule 56, designate specific facts 

which show there is a genuine issue for trial. Devereaux, 263 F.3d at 1076. In assessing whether 

a party has met its burden, the court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the 

nonmoving party. Allen v. City of Los Angeles, 66 F.3d 1052, 1056 (9th Cir. 1995). 

DISCUSSION 

Plaintiff Savage's case is based on his 28 U.S.C. §1983 and Oregon Tort Claims Act 

(OTCA) claims brought against the defendants, Jackson County and Jackson County Sheriff 

Deputies Eric Henderson and William Shopp, for their alleged violations of his rights under the 

Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, after Savage was erroneously arrested in 

2012 for violating a no-contact provision of his probation that was actually no longer in effect, 

because the recent termination of the no-contact provision had not been updated in law 

enforcement databases or even reported to the Plaintiffs own probation officer. (ECF Nos. 1; 

1 O; and 11 ). When the Deputies arrested Savage, they received confirmation that the no-contact 

provision was still in place from both the dispatch center and Savage's own probation officer. 

(see Shopp Deel.~~ 7; 15-16; Henderson Deel.~ 7; ECF Nos. 10; 11; 43). 

The Plaintiff argues that because the no-contact provision was not actually in effect any 

longer, the Deputies lacked probable cause to arrest him and violated his rights when they did so. 

3 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 1:14-cv-01631-CL Document 47 Filed 07/14/16 Page 3 of 4
However, Judge Clarke found that the Deputies did have probable cause to arrest Savage, 

because of the confirmations they received from both dispatch and Savage's probation officer. 

As Judge Clarke noted in his findings (ECF No. 43 at pp. 13-15), for purposes of defending a 

claim under § 1983, the Defendants do not need to show that the Plaintiff was actually guilty; 

they merely need to show they had probable cause to effectuate the arrest. Devenpeck v. Alford, 

543 U.S. 146, 152 (2004). This precedent is further outlined in the cases cited by the 

Defendants in their briefs (ECF Nos. 40 and 43), which correctly state that, "Probable cause to 

arrest or detain is an absolute defense to any claim under § 1983 against police officers for 

wrongful arrest or false imprisonment, as the lack of probable cause is a necessary element of 

each. " Lacy v. Cnty. of Maricopa, 631 F. Supp. 2d 1183, 1193 (D. Ariz. 2008) (citing Cabrera v. 

City of Huntington Park, 159 F.3d 374, 380 (9th Cir. 1998)). 

CONCLUSION 

For these reasons, it is hereby ordered that Magistrate Judge Clarke's Findings and 

Recommendation (ECF No. 43) is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY. Defendants' Motion for 

Summary Judgement (ECF No. 28) is GRANTED and Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary 

Judgment As To Liability (ECF No. 33) is DENIED. Plaintiffs case is DISMISSED with 

prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED this 14th day of July, 2016. 

4 - OPINION AND ORDER 

... 

\..-.. l 

Michael J. McShane 

United States District Judge 

Case 1:14-cv-01631-CL Document 47 Filed 07/14/16 Page 4 of 4