I
1
!"#$%&'&&()*(+,&+,(-./%%%01)23$45%67%%%845$9$:%14%;</0%01)=$5%,>?&@?+,&+%%%-"A$%&%1B%&,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SO U TH ERN D ISTR ICT O F FLO RID A CA SE N O .II-ZOIZO-CIV -SEITZ/SIM ON TON TM IAN BU JDU V EAN U
Plaintiff, V.
DISM AS CHARITIES,lNC.,etal., Defendants.
/
ORDER AFFIRMING ANDADOPTING MAGISTM TE'SREP-ORTAND
RECOM M ENDATION.O VERRULING PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS. A LLO W IN G PLA INT IFF LEAV E TO A M EN D A N D R EFE RR IN G PENDING M OTIONS TO M AG ISTRATE JUDGE
On June 12,2009,PlaintiffTraian Bujduveanu (รงtplaintiff'orCtBujduveanu'')pledguilty
under18U.S.C.j371toconspiracytoviolatethelnternationalEmergencyEconomicPowers ActandtheAt'msExportControlAct.ThisCourtcommittedBujduveanu tothecustodyofthe UnitedStatesBureauofPrisons(t(BOP'')tobeimprisonedforaterm ofthirtpfive(35)months.
OnJuly 10,2010,theBOP assignedBujduveanutoahalfwayhouseoperatedbyDefendant DismasCharities,lnc.(1$Dismas''),who,formedicalreasons,placedhim onhomeconfinement and requiredhim to reportto thehalfwayhouseoncea week.TheallegationsoftheComplaint concem theincidentsoccurringduringtheweek ofOctober13,2010. AfterDismasemployees
locatedacellulartelephoneinBujduveanu'scar,hewasorderedtoreturntoconfinementatthe halfway houseforaperiod ofthreeweeks. A few daysafterreturning tothehalfwayhouse,a Dismasem ployee,DefendantDerek Thomas,allegedly had theU.S.M arshalsrem ove
Bujduveanuandincarceratehim attheFederalDetentionCenterin M iamifor81days.
Bujduveanu'sAmendedComplaintseeks$3.6millionindamagesforDefendants'violationof
!"#$%&'&&()*(+,&+,(-./%%%01)23$45%67%%%845$9$:%14%;</0%01)=$5%,>?&@?+,&+%%%-"A$%+%1B%&,
hisconstitutionalrights(1St,4th 5th 8* and 14thAmendments)andforstatelaw violations(false arrest,falseimprisonment,maliciousprosecution,etc.).Defendantsmovedtodismiss(DE-261, which theCourtreferred to M agistrate JudgeAndrea Sim onton foraReportand
Recommendation (DE-43J.MagistrateJudgeSimontonissuedacomprehensivesixtpsixpage
Report(DE-94jrecommendingthattheCourtdismisstheAmended Complaintandallow
Bujduveanuanopportunitytoamend someofhisclaims.lThematteriscurrentlybeforethe CourtonbothBujduveanu's(DE-96)andtheDefendants'(DE-95)objectionstoM agistrate Judge Sim onton'sReport. Forthereasonssetforthbelow,theCourtwillovem zlebothparties'
objections,aftirm andadopttheReportandRecommendation,andallow Bujduveanuleaveto mnendhispleadingsconsistentwith theReportand Recommendation and thisOrder. 1.
BUJDUVEANU'SO BJECTIONS
BujduveanuhassetforthtenobjectionstoM agistrateJudgeSimonton'sReport,which theCourtwilladdressseriatim.Heobjectstotherecommendationtodismisshisclaimsfor
faluretostateaplausibleclaim forrelief Hedoesnotobjecttotherecommendationthathis Bivensclaim againstDism asCharitiesandthefïvcnçœ ighth Am endm entm edicalindifference
claimsagainsttheindividualDefendantsbedismissedwithprejudice. A.
FOURTH A M ENDM ENT
BujduveanufirstobjectstotherecommendationtodismisshisFourthAmendmentclaim. Relyingon UnitedStatesv.Matlock,415U.S.164(1974)andotherdecisions,Bujduveanu
lBujduveanu'sclaim undertheDoubleJeopardyClause,theBivensclaim againstDismas Charities,Inc.and theclaim sundertheEighth Am endm entbased upon indifference to the need for m edicaltreatmentagainstDefendantsAna Gispert,Derek Thomasand Lashanda Adam sare aIl
dismissedwithprejudice.
1
I
!"#$%&'&&()*(+,&+,(-./%%%01)23$45%67%%%845$9$:%14%;</0%01)=$5%,>?&@?+,&+%%%-"A$%>%1B%&,
arguesthatliprobationarystatusdoesnotconvertaprobationer'sfam ily into second classcitizens e arenotstripped oftheirrightofprivacy becausethey m aybeliving with a ..Thesepeopl
probationerl.l''Pl.'sObj.,p.4.Theseauthorities,however,areirrelevanttotheinstantcase becauseBujduveanuwasnotaCรงprobationer''duringtherelevanttimeframe-hewasafederal
prisonerwhohadnotcompletedhistennofimprisonment.Inaddition,totheextentthat BujduveanuseekstoholdDefendantsThomas,AnaGispertandLashandaAdamsliableunder theFourthAmendmentfortheactsoftheirsubordinateemployeestmderatheoryofrespondeat
l
superior,see/t@,theCourtrejectsthatcontention.SeeAshcro? v.lqbal,556U.S.662,
l
S.Ct.1937,1948-49(2009)(รงsGovernmentoffcialsmaynotbeheldliableforunconstitutional
!
j
t j
,129
conductoftheirsubordinatesunderatheoryofrespondeatsuperior.'').Bujduveanu'sfirst
objectionisoverruled. B.
FIRST A M ENDM ENT R ETALIATION CLAIM
MagistrateJudgesimontonrecommendeddismissingBujduveanu'sFirstAmendment claim becausehe failed to t'allegethatany oftheactionstaken againsthim by Defendantswere
becauseoftheexerciseoffreespeech.''Inhisobjections,Bujduveanu merelypositsthathe requested and wasdenied the ability to attend service ataRomanian Orthodox Church located in PembrokePines.Thisinformation,however,failsto addresstheshortcomingsoftheAm ended
Complaintnoted byM agistrateJudgeSimonton.BujduveanufailedtoallegeinhisAmended C0mplaint, orexplaininhisObjection,thatanyoftheactionstakenbyDefendantswerearesult ofhisexerciseoffreespeech.TheCourtmustthereforeoverrulethesecondobjection. C.
EIGHTH A M ENDM ENT;D ELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE
In response to M agistrate Judge Sim onton's recom m endation to dism issthe Eighth
-3-
!"#$%&'&&()*(+,&+,(-./%%%01)23$45%67%%%845$9$:%14%;</0%01)=$5%,>?&@?+,&+%%%-"A$%C%1B%&,
Amendmentclaim,Bujduveanuidentifiesadditionalallegationsnotsetforthinapleadingor consideredbyM agistrateJudgeSimonton.AnobjectiontoaReportandRecommendationdoes notprovidean opportunity to supplementpleadings-thatcan only beaccomplishedthrough
filinganAmendedComplaint.Thisobjectionisoverruled. D.
FIFI'H A M ENDM ENT -D UE PROCESS
Bujduveanu'sobjectiontotherecommendationtodismisswith leavetonmendtheDue Processclaim ignoresalm ostthe entirety ofM agistrateJudge Sim onton'sanalysisoftheissue.
Nothinginhisobjection contradictsM agistrateSimonton'sanalysis.A partyfilingobjectionsto amagistrate'sreportand recom mendation,however,mustspecitically identify those tindings
objectedto.UnitedStatesv.Schultz,565F.3d 1353,136l(11th Cir.2009).Frivolous,
conclusive,orgeneralobjectionsneednotbeconsideredbythedistrictcourt.fJ.TheCourt mustthereforeoverrulethisobjection.TotheextentthatBujduveanuamendshisdueprocess claim ,hemustm akeclearwhetherheallegesadenialofdueprocessfrom Defendantsrem oving him from home confinementand/orfrom removing him from the halfwayhouseto FDC M iam i. E.
D OUBLE JEOPARDY
M agistrateJudgeSimontonalsorecommendedthatBujduveanu'sDoubleJeopardyclaim
bedismissedwithprejudice.SheconcludedthatPlaintiffhadfailedtoallegethattkhistransferto FDC orany disciplinethathemay havereceivedrelated to any violationsatthehalfway house
werepredicatedupon anycriminalviolationsthatwould implicatethedoublejeopardyclause.'' Report,p.55.Ratherthancontradictthisanalysis,Bujduveanu'sobjectionprovidessupportfor M agistrateJudgeSimonton'sconclusion.Bujduveanumakesclearthatnocriminalprosecution occurred norwere Ctsanctions''im posed againsthim pursuantto various sections ofthe Code of
-
4-
!"#$%&'&&()*(+,&+,(-./%%%01)23$45%67%%%845$9$:%14%;</0%01)=$5%,>?&@?+,&+%%%-"A$%D%1B%&,
FederalRegulations.SeeObj.,pp.10-11.TheSupremeCourthasmadeclearthattheDouble Jeopardy Clausetรงprotectsonly againstthe imposition ofm ultiple criminalpunishmentsforthe
sameoffense.''Hudsonv.Unitedstates,522U.S.93,99(lgg7ltemphasisinoriginal).Because Plaintiffconcedesthatno subsequentcrim inalprosecution occurred here,the Courtagreesthat
dismissalwithprejudiceisproper. F.
FALSE A RREST AND IM PRISONM ENT
ln hisobjectiontoM agistrateJudgeSimonton'srecommendationtodismisshisstatelaw
tortclaims,Bujduveanurepeatsanargumentfotmdthroughouthispapers-thattheDefendants Sftrumped up''thechargesagainsthim so thathe would berettu-ned to federalprison.In repeating
thisfactualargument,BujduveanunecessarilyneglectstoaddressthelegalbasisforJudge Simonton'srecommendation-PlaintifffailedtoallegethattheDe# ndantsarrestedhim.Instead, theComplaintprovidesthatBujduveanu ktwasremoved from theDismasCharitiespremisesby U.S.M arshalAgentsg.l''Compl.,!38(DE-141. Bujduveanualsorepeatedlyanderroneously viewshimselfasaparolee.See,e.g.,Obj.p.12.Bujduveanuhadnotcompletedhissentence and thuscalmotbeconsidered aparolee.M oreover,paroleno longerexistsin theFederal
system .The Courtagreeswith M agistrate Sim onton'sconclusion thatthisclaim mustalso be dism issed. G.
M SAULT AND BATTERY
Bujduveanuconcedesthathehasnotproperlypledaclaim forassaultandbattery.Pl.'s Obj.,p.13.Heargues,however,thatthehecannotpleadsuchaclaim becausetheDefendants failed to providehim aBP-9 fonn to documentthe assaultand battery. Id Theunavailability of
aBP-9form todocumentanassaultandbatteryhasnoimpactwhatsoeveronBujduveanu's
!"#$%&'&&()*(+,&+,(-./%%%01)23$45%67%%%845$9$:%14%;</0%01)=$5%,>?&@?+,&+%%%-"A$%@%1B%&,
abilityto properly plead factsto supporta claim forassaultand battery in hisAmended Com plaint. Thisclaim m ustalso be dism issed. H.
M ALICIOUS PROSECUTION
Bujduveanuobjectstothedismissalofhismaliciousprosecutionclaim because tr efendantsintentionally m is-indicted''him in orderto deprivehim ofรงttheprivilege ofparole.''
P1.'sObj.,p.15.Again,Bujduveanuwasnotaparolee.Noristhereanyallegationinthiscase thattheDefendants,oranyotherentity,indictedBujduveanuforanycrime.Attemptingto advance factualinaccuraciesprovidesno basisto overruleM agistrate JudgeSimonton'sthorough Reportand Recom m endation. 1.
A BIJSE OF PROCESS
MagistrateJudgeSimontonalsorecommendedthattheCourtdismissBujduveanu's abuse ofprocess claim forfailing to state a claim upon w hich reliefcan be granted. In response,
Bujduveanuรง%challengestheDefendantstoproducedocuments''tosupporttheirrendition ofthe facts.Pl.'sObj.,p.16.Plaintiff'sdemand,however,isamatterforsummaryjudgment,nota motion to dism iss.Atthisstageoftheproceedings,the Courtisconcerned with thelegal sufficiency ofthepleadings,notwhetherdocumentsexistto supportaparty'sposition. The
allegationsofBujduveanu'spleadingsareinadequateandnothingtheDefendantsmightproduce hasany impacton thatlegalconclusion.Accordingly,the Courtaffirm sand adoptsthe
recommendationtodismissBujduveanu'sabuseofprocessclaim. J.
N EGLIGENCE AND G ROSS NEGLIGENCE
In responseto therecommendationto dism isshisnegligenceand grossnegligenceclaim s
forfailuretoallegeadutybreachedbyDefendants,Bujduveanu assertsinhisobjectionthat
!"#$%&'&&()*(+,&+,(-./%%%01)23$45%67%%%845$9$:%14%;</0%01)=$5%,>?&@?+,&+%%%-"A$%E%1B%&,
Defendantshad adutytocomplywithhisDoctor'sdirectivethatBujduveanunotperform
manuallabor.P1.'sObj.,pp.17-18.Bujduveanu arguesthatDefendantsbreachedthisduty whentheyrequiredhim toSรงdust''somepartofthehalfwayhouse.1d Although Bujduveanu providesno elaboration on hisDoctor'sdirective,itrequiresasignificantexpansion ofthis
Court'sunderstandingoftheterm รงtmanuallabor''toconcludethatBujduveanu'sdoctorforbid him from performing atask,such asdusting,thatrequiresso little exertion.In any event,
Bujduveanu neverallegedthatheactuallydustedanything,onlythathewasorderedtodo so. Assum ing forthem omentthatDefendantshad aduty notto requirehim toperform itmanual labor,''such adutydidnotpreventthem from requestingheperform such tasks. Atthe bare
minimtlm,Bujduveanuneededtoallegethatheactuallyperformedtherequestedtasksbeforehe could begin to stateaclaim underthistheory.Becauseno such allegationsareincluded in his pleadings,therecommendationto dism issthisclaim isaffirm ed. DEFENDANTS'O BJECTIONS
Defendantsagreewith M agistrateJudgeSimonton'srecomm endationto grantthem otion
todismiss,buttheyobjecttoallowingBujduveanuanopportunitytore-plead.Defs.'Obj.,pp 23(DE-95).Defendantsarguethatdiscoveryisclosedandsummaryjudgmentmotionshavebeen fullybriefed.W hiletheCourtissensitivetotheconcernsvoicedbyDefendants,Bujduveanu should begiven an opportunityto re-plead.Thecase managementschedulesetforth below
shouldaccomplishtheCourt'sdualgoalsofallowingBujduveanuan opportunitytore-pleadand preservingtheparties'prioreffortsonthesummaryjudgmentmotions.Accordingly,itis O RDERED TH AT
(1)
M agistrateJudgeSimonton'sReport(DE-941isAFFIRM ED andADOPTED,and -
7-
!"#$%&'&&()*(+,&+,(-./%%%01)23$45%67%%%845$9$:%14%;</0%01)=$5%,>?&@?+,&+%%%-"A$%7%1B%&,
incorporated by reference intothisCourt'sOrder.
(2)
Defendants'M otiontoDismiss(DE-26)isGRANTED.PlaintiffTraian
Bujduveanu'sclaim undertheDoubleJeopardyClause,theBivensclaim against Dism asCharities,lnc.and theclaim sunderthe Eighth Am endm entbased upon a deliberate indifferenceto a seriousneed formedicaltreatm entagainstDefendants Ana Gispert,Derek Thom asand LashandaAdam sarea11DISM ISSED W ITH PREJUDICE.Therem aining claimsare DISM ISSED W ITHOUT PM JUDICE
with leaveto tile an am ended pleading assetforth below.
(3)
PlaintiffTraianBujduveanu'sObjections(DE-96qareOVERRULED.
(4)
Defendants'Objections(DE-951areOVERRULED.
(5)
PlaintiffisgrantedleavetotileannmendedpleadingconsistentwithJudge Sim onton'sReportand Recommendation and thisOrder.Plaintiffmustfileany such Am ended Complaintno laterthan M arch 28,2012.Faillzreto complywith
thatdeadline,orifPlaintiffdecidesnotto am end,willresultin theCourt
dismissingthiscasewithprejudice.lfPlaintifffilesanamendedpleading, Defendantsshallsubmittheiranswerby April4,2012.Based on theallegations ofthe amended pleading,thepartiesshallfilesupplem entsto theirexisting
motionsforsummaryjudgmentbyApril11,2012toaddressanynew issues.No additionaldiscovery willbeperm itted.
(6)
Thependingmotions(motionsforsummaryjudgment(DE-72,83J,motionto strike(DE-781,motionforheming(DE-791andmotion tostrikeresponse(DE931)areallreferredtoM agistrateJudgeAndreaSimonton foraReportand -
8-
!"#$%&'&&()*(+,&+,(-./%%%01)23$45%67%%%845$9$:%14%;</0%01)=$5%,>?&@?+,&+%%%-"A$%6%1B%&,
Recommendation.Anysupplementstothemotionsforsllmmaryjudgmentare also referred to M agistrate Judge Sim onton.
(7)
ThepartiesshallconferandnotifytheCourtnolaterthanM arch21,2012, whethertheyconsentto finaldisposition ofthism atterby M agistrateJudge Simonton. Attached hereto istheform thepartiesshould executeand fbleby that date.
DONEAND ORDERED inMiami, Florida,thisz/ -da 'y of
arch,2012.
*
cc:a1lparties
PATRICIA A. El Z UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
!"#$%&'&&()*(+,&+,(-./%%%01)23$45%67%%%845$9$:%14%;</0%01)=$5%,>?&@?+,&+%%%-"A$%&,%1B%&, (Rev.10/2002)Noti ceandConsenttoDispositi onofaCivilCasebyaU.S.MagistrateJudge
U NITED STATESD ISTRICT C OURT Southern DistrictofFlorida CaseNumber:
Plaintiff V.
Defendant
l
NOTI CEOFRIGHTTO CONSENTTO DISPOSITIONOFACIVILCASEBYA UNITED STATES M AGISTRATE JUDGE -CONSENT TO EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION BY A UNITED STATES
p I ! ( j
M AGISTM TE JUDGE Inaccordancewiththeprovisionsof28U.S.C.636(c),theundersignedpartiesvoluntarilyconsenttohaveaUnited States M agiskate Judgeconductallfurtherproceedingsinthe case, includingthetrialandordertheentryoffinaljudgment. Sienature
Date
ORDER OF REFERENCE
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED thatthiscasebe referred totheHonorable
UnitedStatesMagistrateJudge,foralIfurtherproceedinp andtheentryofjudgmentinaccordancewith28U.S.C. 636(c),Fed.R.CiV.P.73 andtheforegoingconsentoftheparties. Datedthis
day of
,20
.
United StatesDistrictJudge
NOTE:
RETURN THISFORM TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT ONLY IF ALL PARTW S HAVE
CONSENTED 0N THISFORM TO THE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION BY THE UNITED STATES M AGISTRATE JUDGE
,