Diggs v. Police Officer John Doe

Background

Andre Diggs filed this action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against state actors for violations of constitutional rights. He sought damages and injunctive relief and alleged that Detective Christopher McLaughlin and Detective Benjamin Lopez, identified in the opinion as employees of the City of New York, falsely arrested him without probable cause and maliciously prosecuted him. The opinion also identifies the action as involving the Eighth Amendment.

Diggs initially filed the action and requested permission to proceed without paying filing fees. Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain granted that request, then dismissed the initial complaint for failure to state a claim and allowed Diggs to file an amended complaint. Diggs filed an amended complaint asserting the same claims.

Motion and Report and Recommendation

The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety and asked that the court revoke Diggs’s permission to proceed without paying filing fees. Alternatively, they asked the court to convert the motion into one for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(d). Summary judgment is a ruling based on the evidentiary record when the court determines that a trial is not required to resolve the claims.

In support of the motion, the defendants submitted a domestic incident report dated August 17, 2020, which the opinion identifies as the day Diggs was arrested. The report stated that an individual made a formal complaint to police alleging that Diggs threatened to kill her and made other threats. Diggs did not respond to the motion. The court later notified him that the defendants had submitted the report and gave him an opportunity to dispute the reported complaint or submit sworn statements or other evidence supporting his claims. Diggs did not respond to that notice either.

The court referred the motion to Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker. Judge Parker issued an amended Report and Recommendation recommending that the defendants’ motion be converted into a motion for summary judgment and granted. Because of that recommendation, the Report did not reach the defendants’ request to revoke Diggs’s permission to proceed without paying filing fees.

District Court’s Review

Because no party objected to the Report, Judge Paul A. Engelmayer reviewed it for clear error rather than conducting a fresh review of the disputed issues. He found no facial error in the Report’s conclusions and adopted it in its entirety. The court also stated that the parties’ failure to object waived appellate review of those objections.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion, construed as a motion for summary judgment. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion, close the case, and mail Diggs a copy of the decision. The opinion does not state a separate disposition of the request to revoke Diggs’s permission to proceed without paying filing fees.