FURMAN v. MATOS et al

FURMAN v. MATOS et al

Case Number:	4:2016cv00214
Filed:	September 26, 2019
Court:	US District Court for the Northern District of Florida
Office:	Tallahassee Office
Nature of Suit:	Prison Condition
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
September 26, 2019	Filing 177 ORDER ACCEPTING IN PART REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The report and recommendation is accepted and adopted in part, over Plaintiff's objections, as this Court's opinion. The claim against Defendant Matos is DISMISSED. Pl aintiff's motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 144 , is GRANTED in part to the extent that Plaintiff has shown there is no genuine dispute of material fact that his constitutional rights were violated. Defendant Rheimers' motion for summ ary judgment, ECF No. 152 , is GRANTED in part as to his claim of Eleventh Amendment immunity and Plaintiff's failure to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to Plaintiff's entitlement to compensatory and punitive damages. Defenda nt Cherry's motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 154 , is GRANTED in part as to Plaintiffs failure to raise a dispute of material fact regarding whether Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory and punitive damages. Accordingly, the Clerk shall enter judgment stating, "Summary judgment is granted in part in Plaintiff's favor and against Defendants Cherry and Reimers as to liability, with an award of nominal damages in the amount of $100 against Defendant Cherry. Summary ju dgment is granted in part in favor of Defendants Cherry and Reimers as to Plaintiff's claims for compensatory damages, punitive damages, and declaratory or injunctive relief." The Clerk shall also close the file. Signed by CHIEF JUDGE MARK E WALKER on 9/26/19. (blb)

Date Filed

Document Text

September 26, 2019

Filing 177 ORDER ACCEPTING IN PART REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The report and recommendation is accepted and adopted in part, over Plaintiff's objections, as this Court's opinion. The claim against Defendant Matos is DISMISSED. Pl aintiff's motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 144 , is GRANTED in part to the extent that Plaintiff has shown there is no genuine dispute of material fact that his constitutional rights were violated. Defendant Rheimers' motion for summ ary judgment, ECF No. 152 , is GRANTED in part as to his claim of Eleventh Amendment immunity and Plaintiff's failure to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to Plaintiff's entitlement to compensatory and punitive damages. Defenda nt Cherry's motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 154 , is GRANTED in part as to Plaintiffs failure to raise a dispute of material fact regarding whether Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory and punitive damages. Accordingly, the Clerk shall enter judgment stating, "Summary judgment is granted in part in Plaintiff's favor and against Defendants Cherry and Reimers as to liability, with an award of nominal damages in the amount of $100 against Defendant Cherry. Summary ju dgment is granted in part in favor of Defendants Cherry and Reimers as to Plaintiff's claims for compensatory damages, punitive damages, and declaratory or injunctive relief." The Clerk shall also close the file. Signed by CHIEF JUDGE MARK E WALKER on 9/26/19. (blb)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Florida Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: FURMAN v. MATOS et al
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?