ALPHONSE
v.
WHITE
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.
In this civil rights case, the district court reviewed a magistrate judge's report and recommendation on defendants' motion for partial summary judgment. The court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation, granting summary judgment on some claims but preserving the plaintiff's punitive damages claim based on the Eleventh Circuit's implicit holding in Johnson v. Breeden that punitive damages are available under 18 U.S.C. §3626.
The court held that punitive damages are available under 18 U.S.C. §3626 based on the Eleventh Circuit's implicit holding in Johnson v. Breeden, and therefore denied summary judgment on the punitive damages claim. Summary judgment was granted on Claims 1 and 2, but the case proceeds on Claims 3 and 4 relating to the alleged constitutional violation and failure to intervene.
[1] A court is bound by the implicit holding of the Eleventh Circuit that 18 U.S.C. …
[2] A magistrate judge's report and recommendation is adopted and incorporated by reference when the court reviews the issues raised in objections and agrees with the magistr…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“unless and until the Eleventh Circuit specifically holds that punitive damages are not available under 18 U.S.C. §3626, the Court is bound by the implicit holding in Johnson v. Breeden, 280 F. 3d 1308, 1325-26 (11th Cir. 2002), that §3626 allows recovery of punitive damages”
Establishes the court's binding precedent for allowing punitive damages under §3626 and the standard it will apply until overruled by the Eleventh Circuit
Plaintiff Alphonse brought a civil rights action against Lieutenant J. White and other defendants. The case involves allegations that Defendant Burdet…
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.
This case is before the Court based on the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation (R&R) (Doc. 37). Plaintiff did not file any objections to the R&R, but Defendants did. See Doc. 38.
Upon due novo review of the issues raised in Defendants' objections, the Court agrees with the magistrate judge's recommended disposition of Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment. Specifically, with respect to the issue of punitive damages, the Court finds that unless and until the Eleventh Circuit specifically holds that punitive damages are not available under 18 U.S.C. §3626, the Court is bound by the implicit holding in Johnson v. Breeden, 280 F. 3d 1308, 1325-26 (11th Cir. 2002), that §3626 allows recovery of punitive damages.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
1. The magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order.
2. Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment (Doc. 27) is: a. GRANTED with respect to Claims 1 and 2; and b. DENIED with respect to punitive damages.
3. This case is referred to the magistrate judge for further pretrial proceedings on Claims 3 and 4 relating solely to the allegations that Defendant Burdett inserted his finger into Plaintiff's rectum after he was handcuffed and the other defendants failed to intervene.
DONE AND ORDERED this 28th day of July, 2025.