Benson v. Stewart

Background

Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko issued a Report and Recommendation on December 22, 2025, recommending that the defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted. Benson timely objected. Because Benson represented himself, the court interpreted his objections liberally.

The district court reviewed the parts of the recommendation to which Benson objected. It concluded that Benson’s filing did not contain sufficiently specific objections and that, to the extent a specific objection could be identified, none justified rejecting the recommendation.

Court’s Analysis

The court rejected Benson’s argument that the recommendation improperly weighed evidence. It explained that deciding whether the record contains enough evidence to support a jury verdict is different from deciding which witnesses or evidence are credible. The court also stated that whether the alleged use of force was sufficiently conscience-shocking was a legal question for the court, so considering the evidence in addressing that question was proper.

The court distinguished the pleading stage from summary judgment. Benson’s claims had survived dismissal earlier because his allegations were accepted as true and reasonable inferences were drawn in his favor. At summary judgment, however, Benson had to identify evidence in the record supporting his claims.

For the Fourth Amendment claim, Benson relied on his testimony that he received suspicious-activity alerts from his bank, his belief that Thane Murphy was biased against him, and his belief that Murphy and Ken Stewart worked closely together. Even assuming the case involved a legally protected privacy interest, the court found that Benson had produced no evidence that the defendants accessed his records.

For the Fourteenth Amendment claim, Benson had alleged that mace was used continuously and after he was subdued. The court found that he identified no record evidence supporting that allegation. Instead, it stated that the video and incident reports showed pepper spray being used intermittently after Benson became physical and refused to follow directives, rather than continuously after he had been restrained.

The court characterized the result as based on insufficient evidence linking the defendants to the alleged conduct, not on deciding which witnesses were credible. It stated that speculation and personal belief cannot create a genuine dispute over an important fact at the summary-judgment stage.

The court also clarified that the recommendation did not decide qualified immunity. It stopped before that analysis because the evidence did not establish a constitutional violation that could proceed past summary judgment.

Ruling

Judge Blackwell overruled Benson’s objection, accepted the Report and Recommendation, and granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The remaining claims in Benson’s amended complaint that had not previously been dismissed were dismissed with prejudice. The court ordered that judgment be entered.