Santos-Santos v. Torres-Centeno
842 F.3d 163
1st Cir.2016Background
- Santos, a Puerto Rico police officer, sued her employer and coworkers alleging retaliation and First Amendment violations after participating in complaints and investigations and reporting misuse of police property.
- District court granted partial summary judgment in Aug 2012 dismissing Santos's First Amendment claim under Garcetti and leaving Title VII and Puerto Rico Law 115 retaliation claims for further adjudication.
- After additional discovery, defendants moved for summary judgment based on the Supreme Court's decision in Nassar (requiring but‑for causation for Title VII retaliation); the magistrate judge recommended granting the motion.
- Santos failed to file timely objections to the magistrate judge’s report within the 14‑day period required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) and Puerto Rico Local Rule 72(d); the district court adopted the R&R and entered final judgment in Nov 2014.
- Santos filed a postjudgment motion claiming excusable neglect by counsel (attorney missed electronic notice) and asked to file objections; the district court treated this as a motion for reconsideration (denied it) and found no basis to vacate under Rule 60(b).
- The First Circuit affirmed on procedural grounds: Santos’s failure to object to the magistrate’s R&R forfeited appellate review, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief for excusable neglect.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court erred in dismissing First Amendment claim (Aug 2012) | Santos argued her speech was protected and dismissal under Garcetti was incorrect | Defendants contended her speech was made pursuant to official duties, so Garcetti bars claim | Not reached on merits; appeal did not preserve this earlier order because notice of appeal specified later orders only |
| Whether magistrate judge's R&R adoption (Nov 2014) should be reviewable despite no timely objections | Santos sought to file objections late, citing counsel’s excusable neglect (email/spam, travel) | Defendants argued failure to object waives appellate review under Rule 72(b) and local rules | Forfeited — failure to timely object precludes appellate review per Rule 72(b) and Park Motor Mart rule |
| Whether district court abused discretion in denying relief for excusable neglect (construed as Rule 60(b)(1)) | Santos argued attorney’s neglect was excusable and justified vacating judgment to permit objections | Defendants argued routine carelessness does not satisfy excusable neglect standard | Denial affirmed — district court acted within discretion; routine attorney carelessness is insufficient |
| Whether Nassar requires but‑for causation and thus justifies summary judgment on Title VII claims | Santos contended mixed‑motive or other standards should apply | Defendants relied on Nassar’s but‑for causation for Title VII retaliation claims | Not reached on merits due to procedural forfeiture |
Key Cases Cited
- Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006) (public‑employee speech made pursuant to official duties is not protected by the First Amendment)
- Univ. of Tex. Southwestern Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 133 S. Ct. 2517 (2013) (Title VII retaliation requires but‑for causation)
- Park Motor Mart, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 616 F.2d 603 (1st Cir. 1980) (failure to file timely objections to a magistrate judge’s R&R waives right to appellate review)
- Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985) (appellate courts may condition appeals on timely objections to magistrate recommendations where parties receive clear notice)
- Negron v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 316 F.3d 60 (1st Cir. 2003) (routine attorney carelessness does not constitute excusable neglect under Rule 60(b))