Georgio Rodriquez Scott v. Lamar County, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi adopted, as modified, a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and granted motions for judgment on the pleadings and dismissal. The court dismissed Scott’s federal claims against Lamar County and Judge Anthony Mozingo with prejudice, dismissed his federal claims against the State of Mississippi without prejudice based on sovereign immunity, and declined supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claims. The court cited municipal liability, Eleventh Amendment immunity, absolute judicial immunity, and Heck v. Humphrey.

Holdings

1. When no party objects to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the district court need not conduct de novo review and may review the recommendation for clear error, abuse of discretion, and whether it is contrary to law. The report and recommendation was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law, subject to the modification concerning the disposition of the claims against Mississippi.
2. Scott's federal claims against Lamar County were dismissed with prejudice because the alleged conduct was directed entirely at Judge Mozingo, who was not a Lamar County employee, and Scott did not plead a viable municipal-liability claim under § 1983.
3. Scott's federal claims against the State of Mississippi were dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction because sovereign immunity barred the claims.
4. Scott's federal claims against Judge Mozingo were dismissed with prejudice because he was entitled to absolute judicial immunity; alternatively, the claims were barred by Heck v. Humphrey.
5. After dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims and dismissed them without prejudice.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the magistrate judge's report and recommendation should be adopted under the applicable clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion, and contrary to law standard when no objections were filed.
2. Whether Scott's § 1983 claims against Lamar County failed because the alleged conduct was not attributable to the County and because Scott did not plead municipal liability.
3. Whether Scott's federal claims against the State of Mississippi were barred by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity and because the State is not a person subject to suit under § 1983.
4. Whether Scott's federal claims against Judge Anthony Mozingo were barred by absolute judicial immunity and, alternatively, by Heck v. Humphrey.
5. Whether the court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over Scott's state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Disposition

dismissed