Opinion
No. 5:10-cv-174-DPM
03-20-2013
BRUNSON ROBERTS, ADC #127841 PLAINTIFF v. RODERICK JOHNSON and RICKY WEBB DEFENDANTS
JUDGMENT
Roberts's conditions-of-confinement claim against Johnson and Webb was tried to a twelve-person jury from 11 March 2013 to 14 March 2013. The Court denied Webb and Johnson's two motions for judgment as a matter of law. After deliberations on March 14th, the jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of Johnson and Webb. No party requested a poll of the jury. The verdict is attached and incorporated.
The Court now enters judgment on the jury's verdict for Webb and Johnson and against Roberts on Roberts's Eighth Amendment claim (pursued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983) for conditions-of-confinement during his incarceration at Varner SuperMax. Roberts's claims against Johnson and Webb are dismissed with prejudice.
So Ordered.
_______________
D.P. Marshall Jr.
United States District Judge
VERDICT FORM No. 1
1. On Roberts's claim against Johnson about conditions of confinement, we find for:
____ Brunson Roberts √ Roderick Johnson
If you found for Roberts on question 1, then answer question 2.
2. We find Roberts's damages to be $ _______________. These damages are (circle one) compensatory or nominal.
You may not award punitive damages against Johnson unless you found for Roberts on question 1 and awarded Roberts compensatory damages against Johnson on question 2.
3. We assess punitive damages against Johnson of $ _______________.
Foreperson
VERDICT FORM No. 2
1. On Roberts's claim against Webb about conditions of confinement we find for:
____ Brunson Roberts √ Ricky Webb
If you found for Roberts on question 1, then answer question 2.
2. We find Roberts's damages to be $ _______________. These damages are (circle one) compensatory or nominal.
You may not award punitive damages against Webb unless you found for Roberts on question 1 and awarded Roberts compensatory damages against Webb on question 2.
3. We assess punitive damages against Johnson of $ _______________.
Foreperson