HART v. HARDBOWER

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PANAMA CITY DIVISION

BENJAMIN ESTABON CARLITO HART,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 5:23-cv-75-TKW/MJF

LT. HARDBOWER and OFFICER ALLEN,

Defendants. / ORDER This case is before the Court based on the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 48). Defendants filed an objection (Doc. 49) to the Report and Recommendation, but Plaintiff did not. No response to Defendants’ objection is needed. The Court reviewed the issues raised in the objection de novo as required by 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3), and based on that review, the Court agrees with the magistrate judge’s determination that Defendant Hardbower’s motion to dismiss (which was adopted by Defendant Allen) should be denied on the merits. Specifically, with respect to the punitive damages claim, the Court agrees with the magistrate judge’s determination that 18 U.S.C. §3626 “does not impose a categorical prohibition on an award of punitive damages.” Doc. 48 at 8; see also Jones v. Eustice, 2024 WL 4026180, at *1 (N.D. Fla. Sept. 3, 2024) (rejecting this

same argument on the merits). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation 1s adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order. 2. The motion to dismiss filed by Defendant Hardbower (Doc. 38) and adopted by Defendant Allen (Doc. 43) is DENIED. 3. This case is returned to the magistrate judge for further pretrial proceedings. DONE and ORDERED this 15th day of October, 2024.

□□ Wood

T. KENT WETHERELL, I UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE