From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williams v. Brock

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PANAMA CITY DIVISION
Feb 11, 2013
CASE NO. 5:10-cv-83-RS-GRJ (N.D. Fla. Feb. 11, 2013)

Summary

concluding "that Defendant was not aware of the risk that Plaintiff would be confined by the DOC beyond the sentence intended by the state court."

Summary of this case from Kohr v. Warden

Opinion

CASE NO. 5:10-cv-83-RS-GRJ

02-11-2013

THOMAS CLEVELAND WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. LT. KARLA JO BROCK, Defendant.


ORDER

Before me is the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 81). No objections have been filed.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is approved and incorporated in this Order.
2. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 70) is GRANTED.
3. The case is DISMISSED with prejudice.
4. The clerk is directed to close the file.

_________________________________

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Williams v. Brock

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PANAMA CITY DIVISION
Feb 11, 2013
CASE NO. 5:10-cv-83-RS-GRJ (N.D. Fla. Feb. 11, 2013)

concluding "that Defendant was not aware of the risk that Plaintiff would be confined by the DOC beyond the sentence intended by the state court."

Summary of this case from Kohr v. Warden
Case details for

Williams v. Brock

Case Details

Full title:THOMAS CLEVELAND WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. LT. KARLA JO BROCK, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PANAMA CITY DIVISION

Date published: Feb 11, 2013

Citations

CASE NO. 5:10-cv-83-RS-GRJ (N.D. Fla. Feb. 11, 2013)

Citing Cases

Kohr v. Warden

Second, the plaintiff must show that the official either failed to act or took only ineffectual action under…