Murphy v. Martin

190 F. App'x 764
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
DecidedJuly 7, 2006
DocketNo. 06-11150; D.C. Docket No. 05-00301-CY-BBM-1
StatusPublished

This text of 190 F. App'x 764 (Murphy v. Martin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Murphy v. Martin, 190 F. App'x 764 (11th Cir. 2006).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Michael P. Murphy appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Officer Courtney Johns in Murphy’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Murphy asserts the district court erred in: (1) holding he had not exhausted his remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); (2) concluding an action cannot be brought under § 1983 for violations of civil rights that are defined as “torture” under 18 U.S.C. § 2340A; and (3) declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his remaining state law claims. After a de novo review of the parties’ arguments [765]*765and the record, we affirm for the reasons stated in the district court’s well-reasoned February 13, 2006, Order granting Johns’ motion for summary judgment.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Torture
18 U.S.C. § 2340A
Suits by prisoners
42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
190 F. App'x 764, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murphy-v-martin-ca11-2006.