SANMANN v. UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, No. 4:2010cv00086 - Document 29 (N.D. Fla. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER adopting 28 Report and Recommendation. Dfts' 22 motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to enter summary final judgment in favor of the Dft. The court finds that the case was frivolous and malicious, as Pla lacked any evidentiary support for his claim, and the Clerk is directed to impose a "strike." See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i),(g). Signed by CHIEF JUDGE M CASEY RODGERS on July 11, 2011. (kvg)

Download PDF
SANMANN v. UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT Doc. 29 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION CHARLES C. SANMANN, Plaintiff, v. Case No.: 4:10cv86/MCR/WCS UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, Defendant. _________________________________/ ORDER This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation dated June 8, 2011 (doc. 28). The parties have been furnished a copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). No objections have been filed. Having considered the Report and Recommendation and the record, I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows: 1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (doc. 28) is adopted and incorporated by reference in this order. 2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (doc. 22) is GRANTED. 3. The Clerk is directed to enter summary final judgment in favor of the Defendant. 4. The court finds that the case was frivolous and malicious, as Plaintiff lacked Dockets.Justia.com Page 2 of 2 any evidentiary support for his claim, and the Clerk is directed to impose a “strike.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (g). DONE AND ORDERED this 11th day of July, 2011. M. Casey Rodgers M. CASEY RODGERS CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Case No: 4:10cv86/MCR/WCS

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.