Case Name: Carlos SALOMON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA, a political subdivision of he State of Florida, Officer Damon Quentin Jameson, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-09-25
Citations: 346 F. App'x 496
Docket Number: No. 09-10924
Parties: Carlos SALOMON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA, a political subdivision of he State of Florida, Officer Damon Quentin Jameson, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before TJOFLAT, PRYOR and FAY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 346
Pages: 496–497

Head Matter:
Carlos SALOMON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA, a political subdivision of he State of Florida, Officer Damon Quentin Jameson, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 09-10924
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Sept. 25, 2009.
Carlos Salomon, Homestead, FL, pro se.
Before TJOFLAT, PRYOR and FAY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
In his complaint in this case, Carlos Salomon alleges that Officer Damon Quentin Jameson, a City of Jacksonville police officer, used excessive force when arresting him in 1988 on charges of battery and resisting arrest with violence. Salomon alleges that the excessive force caused him to sustain permanent physical injuries, and that he is therefore entitled to an award of money damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1985. The district court, adopting the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, dismissed Salomon's complaint which was barred by the doctrine of res judicata; Salomon had suffered an adverse judgment in a case he had previously brought in the district court arising out of the alleged excessive force incident, Salomon v. City of Jacksonville, etc., et al., Civ. Action No. 3:05-cv-673-J-32HTS (M.D.Fla. July 19, 2005). For the reasons stated in the magistrate judge's report and recommended, we affirm the district court's judgment.
AFFIRMED.
. Salomon alleges that he is entitled to recover under § 1983 on the grounds that officer Jameson's conduct violated his rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eightth and Fourteenth Amendments.