UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

Case No. 1:20-cv-21242-KMM

JAMIE KNOWLES, 

Plaintiff,

v.

MARK INCH, et al.,

Defendants.

/

ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon pro se Plaintiff Jamie Knowles’ (“Plaintiff”) 

Civil Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (“Compl.”) (ECF No. 1). The Court referred the 

matter to the Honorable Lisette M. Reid, United States Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report and 

Recommendation recommending that Plaintiffs claims for excessive force and medical deliberate 

indifference claims survive against certain Defendants in their individual capacities, while all 

remaining claims be DISMISSED. (“R&R”) (ECF No. 8). Petitioner did not file objections and 

the time to do so has passed. The matter is now ripe for review. As set forth below, the Court 

ADOPTS the R&R. 

The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 

recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). 

 Plaintiff is incarcerated at Dade Correctional Institution (“DCI”). Compl. at 2. On the 

morning of March 21, 2018, Plaintiff jogged out of the dormitory area to “declare a psychological 

emergency.” Id. Plaintiff encountered Defendant Barnett and “forcibly pushed” him into a wall. 

Id. at 3. Defendant Barnett proceeded to place Plaintiff on the ground and sit on Plaintiff to 

immobilize him. Id. Plaintiff “roll[ed] his body to the right,” resulting in Defendant Barnett hitting 

his forehead on the floor. Id. Then, “numerous unknown correctional officers” arrived on the 

Case 1:20-cv-21242-KMM Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/19/2021 Page 1 of 4
2

scene and began jumping on Plaintiff while he was handcuffed. Id. Defendant Barnett removed 

Plaintiff and slammed his head into a concrete wall, causing a laceration for which Plaintiff later 

received stitches and permanent disfigurement. Id. at 3–4. As Defendant Barnett continued 

walking Plaintiff through DCI, Plaintiff was bleeding profusely. Id. at 4.

At some point, Defendant Masso takes over for Defendant Barnett, and “immediately slams 

Plaintiff” into the concrete sidewalk. Id. at 5. Defendant Masso then pins Plaintiff to the ground 

while “Defendant Joseph, Defendant McCloud, and several other unknown officers [began] 

kicking and stepping on Plaintiff . . . .” Id. Defendant Masso then slams Plaintiff’s head into the 

sidewalk multiple times, worsening his existing injury. Id. at 5–7. At this point, Plaintiff is “badly 

disfigured beyond the point of recognition.” Id. at 7. Defendants take Plaintiff to two separate 

shower areas to wash the blood off Plaintiff, but he cannot maintain his balance and repeatedly 

falls to the ground. Id. at 7–8. Rather than taking Plaintiff to receive medical attention, Defendants 

Masso, McCloud, and unknown officers place Plaintiff in a cell. Id. at 8. When Plaintiff is 

eventually brought to receive medical attention, it is determined that Plaintiff must be “airlifted to 

Jackson Memorial South.” Id. at 9–11. 

As set forth in the R&R, Magistrate Judge Reid recommends that Plaintiff be allowed to 

proceed on his individual-capacity excessive force claims against Defendants Barnett, Joseph, 

Masso, and McCloud, as well as his individual-capacity medical deliberate indifference claim 

against Defendants Masso and McCloud, but that Plaintiff’s remaining claims be dismissed. See

generally R&R. First, Magistrate Judge Reid finds that the Complaint sets forth a claim for 

excessive force against the named prison officials upon a “straightforward application” of the 

factors set forth in Hudson v. McMilian. Id. at 4–5. However, Magistrate Judge Reid noted that 

the excessive force claim could not be sustained against the unknown Defendants because 

Case 1:20-cv-21242-KMM Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/19/2021 Page 2 of 4
3

fictitious-party pleading is generally impermissible. Id. at 5. Further, Magistrate Judge Reid finds 

that the claim must be dismissed against Defendants Mark Inch and the Florida Department of 

Corrections (“FDOC”) because the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution bars 

claims against the states that have not waived immunity in federal civil rights actions. Id. at 6–7. 

Second, as to medical deliberate indifference, Magistrate Judge Reid finds that Plaintiff 

alleged that he had serious medical needs and that Defendants Masso and McCloud purposefully 

delayed his treatment despite being aware of the severity of Plaintiff’s injuries. Id. at 7–8. 

However, Magistrate Judge Reid again recommends dismissal of un-named Defendants, as well 

as remaining Defendants which Plaintiff does not allege had any role in delaying his treatment. 

Id. at 8–9. 

Third, Magistrate Judge Reid finds that to the extent Plaintiff attempts to state a due process 

claim based on receiving a disciplinary report after the incident, no cognizable claim is so stated. 

Id. at 9. Magistrate Judge Reid notes that Plaintiff failed to show that any period of confinement 

exceeded his sentence, or that the discipline imposed an atypical and significant hardship on 

Plaintiff. Id. at 10. Further, Magistrate Judge Reid finds that the disciplinary hearing afforded to 

Plaintiff after the incident was sufficient for the purposes of due process. The Court agrees.

Accordingly, UPON CONSIDERATION of the Complaint, the R&R, the pertinent 

portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED 

AND ADJUDGED that Magistrate Judge Reid’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 8) is 

ADOPTED. It is further ORDERED: 

1. Plaintiff’s claims for excessive force and medical deliberate indifference against 

unknown and unnamed Defendants are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, 

Case 1:20-cv-21242-KMM Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/19/2021 Page 3 of 4
4

2. Plaintiff’s claims (a) for violations of due process, (b) against any Defendant in

their official capacity, and (c) for medical deliberate indifference against

Defendants Barnett and Joseph are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and

3. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Mark Inch, FDOC, Warden Colon, Centerion

Health Services, and Sgt. Rodriguez are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

The Clerk of the Court is INSTRUCTED to TERMINATE Defendants Mark Inch, FDOC, 

Warden Colon, Centerion Health Services, and Sgt. Rodriguez as parties to this case. Pursuant to 

Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended 

complaint on or before forty-five (45) days from the date of this Order. Failure to do so may result 

in dismissal of the matter. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Lewis v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 739 F. App’x 

585, 586 (11th Cir. 2018).

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this ____ day of February, 2021. 

K. MICHAEL MOORE

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

c: All counsel of record 

WK

K. MICHAEL MOORE

Case 1:20-cv-21242-KMM Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/19/2021 Page 4 of 4