Kirklin Hamlin v. Donald McGehee, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan adopts in part and rejects in part a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation concerning Defendant Pell’s motion to dismiss. The court dismisses Plaintiff Hamlin’s negligence claim and the failure-to-intervene claim relating to a later search of a U-Haul, but preserves the Fourth Amendment failure-to-intervene claim based on Defendant McGehee’s earlier entry into the vehicle. The order is based in part on the distinction between the timing of the searches and whether probable cause had been established when each occurred.

Holdings

1. The district court declined to dismiss this claim because Pell's motion did not address it and the report and recommendation did not analyze it. Hamlin therefore retained a failure-to-protect claim based on McGehee's earlier entry into the vehicle.
2. The court granted Pell's motion to dismiss this claim because the pleadings and body-camera footage did not support a claim that Pell failed to intervene when McGehee opened and searched the rear of the vehicle.
3. Hamlin's negligence claim against Pell was dismissed because the complaint alleged, at most, ordinary negligence and did not plead facts showing gross negligence sufficient to invoke an exception to Michigan governmental immunity.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the report and recommendation should be adopted as to Hamlin's failure-to-intervene claim arising from McGehee's initial entry into the UHaul.
2. Whether the pleadings and body-camera footage supported dismissal, including qualified immunity, as to the alleged failure to intervene when McGehee searched the rear of the UHaul.
3. Whether Hamlin pleaded gross negligence sufficient to avoid governmental immunity under Michigan law.
4. Whether supplemental jurisdiction over the negligence claim should be declined after the court determined that a federal Fourth Amendment claim remained viable.

Disposition

other