Parcher v. Gee et al

Filing 103

ORDER granting 61 defendant's motion for sanctions; denying 77 plaintiff's motion for sanctions; adopting the report and recommendation 102 . Signed by Judge Steven D. Merryday on 12/27/2016. (SKB)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION JAMES W. PARCHER, Plaintiff, v. CASE NO. 8:09-cv-857-T-23TGW SHERIFF DAVID GEE, et al., Defendants. / ORDER Parcher’s complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleges that the defendants violated his civil rights. This action proceeds on Parcher’s third amended complaint. (Doc. 50), which the defendants moved to dismiss. (Doc. 52) Based on an exhibit attached to Parcher’s opposition (Doc. 59), the defendants move for sanctions for Parcher’s fraud on the court. (Doc. 61) Parcher countered with his motion for sanctions. (Doc. 77) The district court referred (Doc. 85) the two motions for sanctions to Magistrate Judge Thomas G. Wilson. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the magistrate judge in a painstakingly thorough and utterly convincing report recommends granting the defendants’ motion and denying Parcher’s motion. Neither party objects to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation (Doc. 102). The report and recommendation (Doc. 102) is ADOPTED. The defendants’ motion for sanctions (Doc. 61) is GRANTED and Parcher’s motion for sanctions (Doc. 77) is DENIED. This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The clerk must enter a judgment against Parcher and for the defendants and close this case. ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on December 27, 2016. -2-

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?