Court Opinion

ID: 3171092
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-01-21 01:00:44.148426+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:17:51.736195
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM:
  
   *
  

  The judgment of the district court is affirmed with the following response to defense objections.
 

  These parties are well informed on what the law allows state officers for qualified immunity; and if essential facts are known, the decision about the defense is for the judge to decide. The judge here had evidence of intended malicious harm inflicted on plaintiff by defendants, and that question was put to a jury.
 

 
   *357
   
  The jury found that defendants used excessive force, acting with “malice, willfully, intentionally or with callous and reckless indifference to Plaintiffs constitutional rights.”
 

  The district judge made no legal error or abuse of discretion.
 

  AFFIRMED.
 

   *
  

   Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.