WROMAS v. TUTEN et al

Filing 110

AMENDED ORDER ACCEPTING IN PART THE 105 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 85 , is DENIED. Defendants' motion for summary judgment, ECF No 92 , is DENIED in part. Summary judgment is GRANTED in favor of Defendants Anderson and Moss, but otherwise DENIED as to Defendant Tuten. This matter is remanded to the Magistrate Judge for further consideration. Signed by CHIEF JUDGE MARK E WALKER on 9/15/2020. (kjw)

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

KEITH WROMAS,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. 4:18cv209-MW-MAF

R.A. TUTEN, A. ANDERSON,
and CAPTAIN MOSS,
Defendants.
_________________________/
AMENDED ORDER ACCEPTING IN PART
THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
In the haste of entering an Order on the Report and Recommendation, ECF No.
105, which had been pending since early July 2020, the Order was less than clear.
The Report and Recommendation was accepted as to Plaintiff’s motion for summary
judgment, which is denied. The Report and Recommendation was accepted in part as
to Defendants’ motion. To be clear, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is
granted as to Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Moss and Anderson and denied as
to Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim brought against Defendant Tuten.
An Eighth Amendment claim may be sustained when force is used that offends
“contemporary standards of decency,” regardless of whether “significant injury is

Page 2 of 2

evident.” Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34, 37, 130 S. Ct. 1175, 175 L. Ed. 2d 995
(2010)). Furthermore, “[n]ominal damages are appropriate if a plaintiff establishes
a violation of a fundamental constitutional right, even if he cannot prove actual injury
sufficient to entitle him to compensatory damages.” Hughes v. Lott, 350 F.3d 1157,
1162 (11th Cir. 2003). The Eleventh Circuit has recently clarified that when a pro se
litigant requests compensatory damages, that should be viewed as also including
nominal damages. Furman v. Warden, No. 19-14134 (11th Cir. Sept. 11, 2020).
Here, a jury must determine if Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim was harmful
enough to violate contemporary standards of decency and, in so doing, determine
whether Plaintiff is entitled to monetary damages, either compensatory or nominal.
Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 85, is DENIED.
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, ECF No 92, is DENIED in part.
Summary judgment is GRANTED in favor of Defendants Anderson and Moss, but
otherwise DENIED as to Defendant Tuten. This matter is remanded to the Magistrate
Judge for further consideration.
SO ORDERED on September 15, 2020.
s/ Mark E. Walker
Chief United States District Judge

Case No. 4:18cv209-MW-MAF