Murphy v. Martin

Eleventh Circuit

Murphy v. Martin

190 F. App'x 764

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit·Decided July 7, 2006·No. No. 06-11150; D.C. Docket No. 05-00301-CY-BBM-1·Published

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] and 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

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] and 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.

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

Pincite

190 F. App'x 764 (Murphy v. Martin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related