INGRAM et al v. BERTRAM et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
GLORIA JEAN INGRAM &
TRINITY KENNICE INGRAM,
Plaintiffs,
vs. 	Case No.: 3:23cv18414/TKW/ZCB
NATHAN BERTRAM, et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This is a civil rights case filed against employees of the Walton
County 	Sheriff’s 	Office 	under 	42 	U.S.C. 	§ 	1983 	and 	federal 	Drug
Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents under Bivens v. Six Unknown
Named 	Agents 	of 	Fed. 	Bureau 	of 	Narcotics, 	403 	U.S. 	388 	(1971).
Currently before the Court is a motion for summary judgment filed by
the DEA Defendants. (Doc. 73). Plaintiffs have responded in opposition,
and the DEA Defendants have replied. 	(Docs. 93, 95). 	For the reasons
below, the DEA Defendants are entitled to summary judgment.
Case 3:23-cv-18414-TKW-ZCB Document 96 Filed 11/17/25 Page 1 of 9

2
I. 	The Allegations
This case stems from an investigation into the drug trafficking
activities of Kenneth Ingram.1 	On July 13, 2019, at around 6:30 p.m., a
deputy with the Walton County Sheriff’s Office conducted a traffic stop
of car in which Mr. Ingram was a passenger. A search of the car yielded
1.7 kilograms of cocaine and $4,000 in cash. 	Later that evening, a drug
task force comprised of Walton County deputies and agents from the DEA
arrived at Mr. Ingram’s residence. 	That is where the allegations in this
case begin.
Plaintiffs (Gloria Ingram, Mr. Ingram’s wife; and Trinity Ingram,
Mr. Ingram’s daughter) allege that at “some point during the evening
hours,” law enforcement officers forcibly entered the residence and began
to search it. 	According to Plaintiffs’ allegations, the officers entered
without warning, had weapons drawn, and were shouting. 	Plaintiffs
further allege that while Gloria—who uses a cane due to a medical
condition—was attempting to comply with instructions to get down on
1 The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that Kenneth Ingram was
subsequently convicted of federal drug trafficking charges and sentenced
to 70 months’ imprisonment. 	(3:19-cr-113, Doc. 450) (N.D. Fla.). 	See
United States v. Jones, 29 F.3d 1549, 1553 (11th Cir. 1994) (authorizing
a court to take judicial notice of another court’s orders).
Case 3:23-cv-18414-TKW-ZCB Document 96 Filed 11/17/25 Page 2 of 9

3
the floor, an officer struck Gloria’s ankles with a police baton and
slammed her to the ground. This allegedly caused Gloria to fall down on
her knees and shoulder. The same officer allegedly twisted Gloria’s arm
and placed his knee in her back. Upon seeing this happen to her mother,
Trinity Ingram allegedly screamed and reached for Gloria. At that time,
an officer allegedly hit Trinity with a police baton and threw her to the
ground.
During the encounter, Gloria allegedly asked to see the search
warrant multiple times. The officers, however, allegedly failed to produce
a warrant. 	According to Plaintiffs, the officers did not produce a search
warrant because they did not have a warrant. Rather, Plaintiffs say the
officers did not obtain a search warrant until the day after the actual
search. 	The search led to the discovery of illegal drugs, as well as eight
firearms.
In their complaint, Plaintiffs claim that they suffered injuries as a
result of the force used against them during the search. More specifically,
Gloria claims she experienced a knee injury that required surgery,
multiple herniated disks in her back, as well as experiencing severe
emotional distress. 	And Trinity claims that the incident caused her to
suffer an ankle injury that required surgery, a torn labrum in her
Case 3:23-cv-18414-TKW-ZCB Document 96 Filed 11/17/25 Page 3 of 9

4
shoulder, and herniated disks in her back. Additionally, Trinity allegedly
experienced severe emotional distress.
The named Defendants in the complaint include the Walton County
Sheriff, Michael Adkinson, Jr., deputies with the Walton County Sheriff’s
Office, as well as two DEA agents. 	The named Walton County deputies
are Nathan Bertram, Damon Byrd, Brandon Coone, Tammy Goodwin,
Steve Key, and Alysha Landis. The named DEA agents are Kevin Miller
and John Manna. The complaint asserts that all Defendants violated the
Fourth Amendment by using excessive force on Plaintiffs during the
search 	on 	July 	13, 	2019. 	The 	claims 	against 	the 	Walton 	County
Defendants have been brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 	The claims
against the DEA Defendants have been brought under Bivens. In terms
of relief, Plaintiffs have sought compensatory and punitive damages, as
well as attorney’s fees.
II. 	Procedural History
Defendants filed motions to dismiss. 	(Docs. 26, 27). 	The district
judge granted the motion to dismiss filed by Defendant Adkinson (the
Sheriff) and denied the other motions to dismiss. 	(Doc. 31). 	Plaintiffs
later voluntarily dismissed their claims against Defendants Goodwin,
Case 3:23-cv-18414-TKW-ZCB Document 96 Filed 11/17/25 Page 4 of 9

5
Landis, and Byrd. 	(Docs. 49, 51).2 	Thus, the remaining Defendants are
Walton County deputies Bertram, Coone, and Key, along with DEA
agents Miller and Manna. 	The remaining Defendants have moved for
summary judgment. In this opinion, the Court addresses the motion for
summary judgment filed by the DEA Defendants.3
III. 	Summary Judgment Standard
Summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows that there
is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled
to judgment as a matter of law.” 	Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). 	A dispute is
“genuine” if the “evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a
verdict for the nonmoving party.” 	Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477
U.S. 242, 248 (1986). 	A fact is “material” if it “might affect the outcome
of the suit under the governing law.” 	Id.
At 	bottom, 	the 	summary 	judgment 	question 	is 	“whether 	the
evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a
2 Plaintiffs were initially represented by Attorney Nathan Prince. 	He
later withdrew as counsel. 	(Docs. 52, 53). 	Attorneys Marie Mattox and
Farnita Saunders Hill then appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs. 	(Docs. 58,
65). 	Attorneys Mattox and Hill subsequently withdrew. 	(Docs. 72, 80).
Plaintiffs are now representing themselves.
3 The Court will issue a separate opinion addressing the motions for
summary judgment filed by the Walton County deputies.
Case 3:23-cv-18414-TKW-ZCB Document 96 Filed 11/17/25 Page 5 of 9

6
jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter
of law.” 	Id. at 251-52. 	When answering that question, courts view the
evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. 	Scott v.
Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007). 	But the nonmoving party bears the
burden of coming forward with sufficient evidence on each element.
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). 	A mere “scintilla”
of evidence is insufficient to meet that burden. 	Young v. City of Palm
Bay, Fla., 358 F.3d 859, 860 (11th Cir. 2004).
IV. 	Discussion
The DEA Defendants argue that they are entitled to summary
judgment because it is undisputed that neither of them used any force—
let alone excessive force—against Plaintiffs. 	They further argue that it
is undisputed that neither of the DEA Defendants were in the house at
the 	time 	the 	alleged 	excessive 	force 	was 	used 	against 	Plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs’ response in opposition4 to the DEA Defendants’ motion points
to nothing in the record evidence that disputes the DEA Defendants’
4 It bears mentioning that Plaintiffs’ response is unsworn and, therefore,
would not be sufficient to defeat summary judgment. See Burke v. Bowns,
653 F. App’x 683, 698 n.16 (11th Cir. 2016) (“[S]tatements in an unsworn
response [to a summary judgment motion] do not constitute evidence that
can be considered at the summary judgment stage.”).
Case 3:23-cv-18414-TKW-ZCB Document 96 Filed 11/17/25 Page 6 of 9

7
arguments. 	Nor has the Court found anything in the record evidence
that contradicts the DEA Defendants’ arguments.
Indeed, the record evidence shows that the DEA Defendants never
used any force against Plaintiffs. 	In their depositions, both Plaintiffs
conceded that Defendants Miller and Manna never touched them. Here
are the relevant deposition excerpts, first from Plaintiff Trinity Ingram:
Q: Did Kevin Miller touch you in any way?
A: No.
Q: Did you see Kevin Miller touch your mother?
A: I don’t remember.
. . . .
Q: The fellow that introduced himself as John Manna,
did he ever touch you?
A: 	No.
Q: Did you ever see him touch your mother?
A: 	No, not that I know of.
(Doc. 73-1 at 119-120). And now for the relevant excerpts from Plaintiff
Gloria Ingram’s deposition:
Q: Did Kevin Miller ever touch you?
A: No, sir.
. . . .
Q: Did John Manna ever touch you?
A: 	No, sir.
Q: Did you ever see Kevin Miller touch your daughter?
A: No, sir.
Q: Did you ever see John Manna touch your daughter?
A: No, sir.
(Doc. 73-2 at 104).
Case 3:23-cv-18414-TKW-ZCB Document 96 Filed 11/17/25 Page 7 of 9

8
The deposition testimony from Plaintiffs is entirely consistent with
the sworn declarations submitted by Defendants Miller and Manna.
(Docs. 73-3, 73-4). 	Those declarations state that Defendants Miller and
Manna were across the street in a church parking lot when the SWAT
team made entry into Plaintiffs’ house. 	(Id.). 	Defendants Miller and
Manna state that they entered the house after it was secured by the
SWAT team, at which time they found Plaintiffs seated on the couch.
(Id.). 	According to the declarations, Defendants Miller and Manna did
use, or see anybody else use, physical force against Plaintiffs. (Id.).
Because “the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier
of fact to find for [Plaintiffs]” on their excessive force claims against the
DEA Defendants, “there is no genuine issue for trial.” 	Scott v. Harris,
550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007) (cleaned up). 	Here, what the record evidence5
shows without genuine dispute is that the DEA Defendants used no force
against Plaintiffs.6 	Accordingly, the DEA Defendants are entitled to
summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ claims against them.
5 Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint (Doc. 23) is unverified, and “at
summary judgment, a party cannot rely solely on allegations from an
unverified complaint.” 	See Liebman v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 708 F. App’x
979, 983 n.3.
6 Although Plaintiffs have not asserted a failure to intervene claim, it
bears mentioning that based on the record evidence no rational juror
Case 3:23-cv-18414-TKW-ZCB Document 96 Filed 11/17/25 Page 8 of 9

9
V. 	Conclusion
For the reasons above, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that
the motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants Miller and Manna
(Doc.73) be GRANTED.
At Pensacola, Florida this 17th day of November 2025.
/s/ Zachary C. Bolitho
Zachary C. Bolitho
United States Magistrate Judge
Notice to the Parties
Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must
be 	filed 	within 	fourteen 	days 	of 	the 	date 	of 	this 	Report 	and
Recommendation. 	Any 	different 	deadline 	that 	may 	appear 	on 	the
electronic docket is for the Court’s internal use only and does not
control. 	An objecting party must serve a copy of the objections on all
other parties. 	A party who fails to object to the magistrate judge’s
findings or recommendations contained in a report and recommendation
waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on
unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. 	See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1; 28
U.S.C. § 636.
could find that the DEA Defendants failed to intervene after observing
other officers use excessive force. 	The record evidence shows that the
DEA Defendants were not in the house until after the scene was secured
and 	that 	the 	DEA 	Defendants 	never 	saw 	any 	force 	used 	against
Plaintiffs.
Case 3:23-cv-18414-TKW-ZCB Document 96 Filed 11/17/25 Page 9 of 9