Mark Warren Bennett

Bennett does not grant summary judgment merely because fact disputes are thin -- in Wilson he refused to weigh evidence or assess credibility on an SJ motion and denied both defense motions where a reasonable jury could find for the plaintiffs on the reasonableness of a guns-drawn stop and pat-down. Counsel moving for SJ before him on fact-intensive Fourth Amendment / excessive-force claims should expect any genuine dispute (and the attendant qualified-immunity question) to be sent to the jury.

“While a jury ultimately may not find all or any of the Wilsons' evidence credible, it is not for me to determine credibility on a motion for summary judgment. ... a reasonable jury could find for the Wilsons on their claims.”

Where a magistrate judge's Report & Recommendation is unobjected-to, Bennett applies the deferential 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) standard and will adopt it if he finds no ground to reject or modify -- but he still independently reviews the findings. An unresisted dispositive motion that has gone through an R&R is very likely to be granted; the time to contest it is by objecting to the R&R.

“In this case, no objections have been filed, and it appears to me upon review of Judge Strand's findings and conclusions, that there is no ground to reject or modify them. Therefore, I accept Judge Strand's Report and Recommendation on defendants' motion for summary judgment.”