Page 1 of 3

Case No. 5:10cv286-RH/GRJ

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

KNOLLY EDWARDS,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 5:10cv286-RH/GRJ

DREW SHORT et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT

FOR THE DEFENDANT SIMS

The plaintiff Knolly Edwards was an inmate at the Federal Correctional 

Institution in Marianna, Florida. Mr. Edwards alleges that he was assigned to work 

disassembling computers, that this caused exposure to dust that included 

substantial amounts of lead and cadmium, that he was not provided protective 

equipment, and that this constituted cruel and unusual punishment. The defendants 

include six individuals who worked at the institution. One, Jimmy Sims, has 

moved for summary judgment.

Case 5:10-cv-00286-RH-GRJ Document 60 Filed 05/09/14 Page 1 of 3
Page 2 of 3

Case No. 5:10cv286-RH/GRJ

The motion is before the court on the magistrate judge’s report and 

recommendation, ECF No. 58, and the objections, ECF No. 59. I have reviewed 

de novo the issues raised by the objections. 

As the report and recommendation correctly concludes, the record 

establishes without dispute that Mr. Sims did not know that Mr. Edwards or any 

other inmate was being exposed to toxic substances. Indeed, Mr. Sims did not 

know of the specific activities that allegedly led to the release of—and thus the 

exposure to—the substances. 

In the objections, Mr. Sims says summary judgment is premature because 

discovery that he has not yet pursued might turn up different facts. The contention 

is unfounded. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 allows a defendant—and even a 

plaintiff—to move for summary judgment at any time after the complaint is filed. 

The popular myth that summary judgment should await the conclusion of all 

discovery is just that—a myth. No rule requires cases to take longer or cost more 

than necessary to reach a correct result. Quite the contrary, “federal courts and 

litigants must rely on summary judgment and control of discovery to weed out 

unmeritorious claims sooner rather than later.” Leatherman v. Tarrant Cnty. 

Narcotics Intelligence & Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 168-69 (1993). 

And the contention that it is not yet time for summary judgment is especially 

unavailing here. This case has been pending for more than three-and-a-half years. 

Case 5:10-cv-00286-RH-GRJ Document 60 Filed 05/09/14 Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3

Case No. 5:10cv286-RH/GRJ

When, as here, the record evidence clearly establishes that a party is entitled to 

prevail, and nothing other than unsupported speculation suggests that further 

discovery might turn up unspecified evidence to the contrary, a court may properly 

enter summary judgment. 

For these reasons and those set out in the report and recommendation,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is ACCEPTED and adopted as the court’s 

further opinion. Mr. Sims’s summary-judgment motion, ECF No. 55, is 

GRANTED. I do not direct the entry of judgment under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 54(b).

SO ORDERED on May 9, 2014.

s/Robert L. Hinkle

United States District Judge

Case 5:10-cv-00286-RH-GRJ Document 60 Filed 05/09/14 Page 3 of 3