An issue recently arose in California where a police dog was used to seize and retrieve a suspect. The plaintiff fled into a thicket of bushes during a police chase. During the encounter the dog bit the plaintiff multiple times, leading to severe injuries to his arm that necessitated a series of surgeries. The plaintiff brought a lawsuit alleging that the use of the police dog was an unreasonable use of force in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights and that, as a result, the officers were liable for his injuries. The defendant officers moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the force used was reasonable and that their actions were shielded by qualified immunity. The matter came before a magistrate judge, who filed a Report and Recommendation (R&R) which recommended that the defendants’ motion be granted in part and denied in part.
The United States District Court reviewed the portions of the R&R to which objections were made and adopted in full the well-reasoned R&R.