Cruz Hinds v. Gabriel Thomas, et al.

Summary

The court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in Cruz Hinds’s prisoner civil-rights action. It dismissed Hinds’s deliberate-indifference, First Amendment retaliation, and equal-protection claims, dismissed the claims against two unidentified and unserved corrections officers without prejudice, and denied summary judgment on Hinds’s Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim against Gabriel Thomas. The court concluded that video evidence did not conclusively disprove Hinds’s account that Thomas punched him while other officers restrained him.

Holdings

1. A district court must conduct de novo review of portions of a magistrate judge's disposition to which a proper objection is made, but need not revisit unobjected-to portions absent obvious error.
2. The First Amendment retaliation claim was properly dismissed because Hinds attempted to rely on new factual allegations raised for the first time in his objections and, in any event, failed to establish protected conduct or an injury greater than de minimis.
3. Summary judgment was properly denied on Hinds's Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim against Thomas because the security footage did not so blatantly contradict Hinds's account that no reasonable jury could believe it.
4. Thomas was not entitled to qualified immunity at the summary-judgment stage because, taking Hinds's account as true, a corrections officer's intentional punch of a restrained prisoner to inflict pain violated clearly established law.
5. The claims against the two unidentified corrections officers were properly dismissed without prejudice because Hinds failed to timely amend the complaint, failed to object to denial of leave to amend, and did not timely bring the officers into the action.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court properly adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation after conducting de novo review of the properly objected-to portions.
2. Whether summary judgment was appropriate on Hinds's First Amendment retaliation and equal-protection claims.
3. Whether video evidence conclusively disproved Hinds's account of Thomas's alleged punch so as to warrant summary judgment on the Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim.
4. Whether Thomas was entitled to qualified immunity on the excessive-force claim.
5. Whether claims against two unidentified, unserved corrections officers should be dismissed without prejudice after Hinds failed to timely amend the complaint and failed to object to denial of leave to amend.

Disposition

other