HILL
v.
KLOUS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Plaintiff sued defendant Chip Klous and later sought to add a police officer. The magistrate judge recommended dismissal for lack of subject-matter ju…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
The magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation on October 13, 2021 (ECF No. 4), recommending dismissal based on lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction. Plaintiff was furnished a copy of the Report and Recommendation and afforded an opportunity to file Objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). Plaintiff responded by filing an Amended Complaint
(Doc. 9) and a Notice of Information (Doc. 10), both of which the Court construes as Objections to the Report and Recommendation. Having considered the Report and Recommendation and conducted a de
novo review of the construed Objections filed thereto, the Court determines that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted. In so finding, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s proposed Amended Complaint identifies as an additional Defendant a police officer who arrived on the scene of the incident in question but evidently
did not arrest Defendant Chip Klous, the only Defendant initially named in the Complaint. A public official or agency has no affirmative constitutional duty to a member of the public to investigate or intervene on an alleged crime. United
States v. Spence, 719 F. 2d 358, 361 (11th Cir.1983); see also DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dep’t of Soc. Serv., 489 U.S. 189, 195–97, 109 S. Ct. 998, 103 L. Ed. 2d 249 (1989) (holding that Due Process Clause generally does not impose affirmative duty on states to aid or protect their citizens). There is no general
constitutional right to police protection. Watson v. City of Kansas City, 857 F. 2d 690, 695 (10th Cir.1988); Wright v. City of Ozark, 715 F. 2d 1513, 1516 (11th Cir.1983). Thus, Plaintiff’s claims against the officer would equally provide no
actionable basis for a Section 1983 claim. Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 4) is adopted and incorporated by reference in this order. 2. This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction.
3. The clerk of court is directed to close this case.
ORDERED on this 21st day of March, 2022.
s/L.A. Collier Lacey A. Collier Senior United States District Judge
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- DeSHANEY v. Winnebago Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189 (U.S. 1989)
- Leeanne Wright v. The City OF Ozark, 715 F.2d 1513 (11th Cir. 1983)