The opinion
SUONUITTEHDE RSTNA DTIESTS RDIICSTTR OIFC TF LCOORUIRDTA
FORT PIERCE DIVISION
CASE NO. 22-14125-CIV-CANNON/McCabe
CAMERON HOLMES,
Plaintiff,
v.
SERGEANT MARTINS,
Defendant.
/
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF No. 51]
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation (“Report”)
issued by Magistrate Judge Ryon M. McCabe on January 3, 2024 [ECF No. 51]. On September
28, 2023, Defendant Martens1 filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (“Motion”) [ECF No. 30].
Following referral, Judge McCabe thereafter issued the instant Report, recommending that the
Motion be granted [ECF No. 51]. Plaintiff did not file objections to the Report or request an
extension of time to do so.2 Upon review, the Court ACCEPTS the Report [ECF No. 30] and
GRANTS Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 30].
LEGAL STANDARDS
A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Those portions of the report and recommendation to
which objections are made are accorded de novo review if those objections “pinpoint the specific
findings that the party disagrees with.” United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir.
2009); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Any portions of the report and recommendation to which
1 Defendant states that her correct name is Sara Infuso-Martens [ECF No. 30 p. 1].
2 Plaintiff’s objections were due on or before January 17, 2024 [ECF No. 51 p. 10].
no specific objections are made are reviewed only for clear error. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S.
140, 150 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a
magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party
objects to those findings.”); Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006).
DISCUSSION
“Qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their
individual capacities if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional
rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Vinyard v. Wilson, 311 F.3d 1340, 1346
(11th Cir. 2002) (quotation omitted). Qualified immunity applies only to state actors in the
performance of their official “discretionary functions.” Holloman ex rel. Holloman v. Harland,
370 F.3d 1252, 1263-64 (11th Cir. 2004). Here, Plaintiff does not dispute the Report’s conclusion
that Defendant was engaged in a discretionary function [ECF No. 51 p. 7 (citing ECF No. 1 pp. 5–
7)]. This conclusion is not erroneous. Arn, 474 U.S. at 150.
Once a Court finds a discretionary function, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate
that qualified immunity does not apply. Harland, 370 F.3d at 1263–64. To meet this burden,
Plaintiff must satisfy a two-step test: (1) he must show that Defendant committed a constitutional
violation, and (2) he must show the constitutional right at issue was “clearly established” at the
time of the violation. Id. To satisfy the second step, “the defendant must have fair notice of his
conduct’s unconstitutionality, which derives from one of the following sources: (1) the obvious
clarity of constitutional or statutory language; (2) broad holdings or statements of principle in case
law that are not tied to particularized facts; or (3) fact-specific judicial precedents that are not fairly
distinguishable.” Eloy v. Guillot, 289 F. App’x 339, 346 (11th Cir. 2008) (citing Wilson, 311 F.3d
at 1350–52). Here, Plaintiff does not dispute the Report’s conclusion that Plaintiff fails to show
that Defendant committed a “clearly established” violation of his Eighth Amendment rights
CASE NO. 22-14125-CIV-CANNON/MCCABE
[ECF No. 51 p. 8]. Defendant played no role and made no recommendations regarding the
decision to release Plaintiff into general population [ECF No. 29 p. 3]. Inmate Kelly knew of
Plaintiffs gang affiliation independently of Defendant’s alleged remarks to other inmates
[ECF No. 29-1 pp. 66, 92]. The Report’s conclusion that “Plaintiff has not shown ‘clearly
established’ violations of constitutional law” is not erroneous. Arn, 474 U.S. at 150.
Therefore, after conducting a review of the Report and the record, the Court agrees with
Magistrate Judge McCabe’s recommendation to grant Defendant Martens’ Motion for Summary
Judgment.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:
(1) Magistrate Judge McCabe’s Report [ECF No. 51] is ACCEPTED.
(2) Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 30] is GRANTED.
(3) Final Judgment to issue by separate order.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida this 31st day of January
2024.
AILEE CANNON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CC: Counsel of record
Cameron A. Holmes
J41899
Charlotte Correctional Institution
Inmate Mail/Parcels
33123 Oil Well Road
Punta Gorda, Florida 33955
PRO SE