WALKER
v.
NOLES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, dismissing the claim for declaratory judgment while denying the motions to dismiss for other claims.
Defendants filed motions to dismiss, which were reviewed by a magistrate judge. The district court reviewed the magistrate judge's report and recommen…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Report And Recommendation Review cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendants have filed two motions to dismiss. The motions are before the court on the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, ECF No. 62, and the defendants' objections, ECF No. 68. I have reviewed de novo the issues raised by the objections.
The report and recommendation correctly resolves the exhaustion issue—the only issue raised by the objections. The report and recommendation also correctly resolves the declaratory-judgment issue. The report and recommendation correctly concludes that whether the plaintiff ultimately will be entitled to recover punitive
Case No. 4:24cv289-RH-MAF
damages should not—and indeed cannot—be determined at this time. It bears noting, though, that under the current law of the circuit, 18 U.S.C. § 3626 does not categorically prohibit a prisoner from recovering punitive damages in a case of this kind. See Dicks v. Bearden, No. 4:24-cv-495-RH-MAF (N.D. Fla. Sept. 18, 2025) (collecting authorities including Johnson v. Breeden, 280 F. 3d 1308, 1325 (11th Cir. 2002), abrogated on other grounds by Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389, 395 (2015)).
IT IS ORDERED: 1. The report and recommendation is accepted and adopted as the court's opinion in relevant part. 2. The motions to dismiss, ECF Nos. 29 and 38, are granted in part and denied in part. 3. The claim for a declaratory judgment is dismissed. The other claims are not dismissed. 4. I do not direct the entry of judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). 5. The defendants must file their answers within 14 days. 6. The case is remanded to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.
SO ORDERED on September 18, 2025.
s/Robert L. Hinkle United States District Judge
Case No. 4:24cv289-RH-MAF