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 (WCSO) 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 are motions for summary judgment filed by
Defendants Key, Coone, and Bertram of the WCSO. 	(Docs. 77, 78, 85).
Plaintiffs have responded in opposition (Doc. 93), and Defendants Key,
Coone, and Bertram have replied. 	(Doc. 94). 	For the reasons below,
Defendants Key, Coone, and Bertram are entitled to summary judgment.
Case 3:23-cv-18414-TKW-ZCB Document 97 Filed 11/21/25 Page 1 of 16

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). 	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 97 Filed 11/21/25 Page 2 of 16

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 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 until after the search was
conducted. 	The search led to the discovery of illegal drugs, as well as
eight firearms.
In 	their 	complaint, 	Plaintiffs 	claim that 	they 	suffered 	serious
injuries as a result of the force used against them during the search.
More specifically, Gloria claims she suffered a knee injury that required
surgery and multiple herniated disks in her back. She also claims to have
experienced severe emotional distress. 	And Trinity claims that the
incident caused her to suffer an ankle injury that required surgery, a torn
Case 3:23-cv-18414-TKW-ZCB Document 97 Filed 11/21/25 Page 3 of 16

4
labrum in her 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 97 Filed 11/21/25 Page 4 of 16

5
Landis, and Byrd. 	(Docs. 49, 51).2 	Thus, the remaining Defendants are
Walton County deputies Key, Coone, and Bertram, and 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 Defendants Key, Coone, and Bertram.3
III. 	Legal 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 previously issued an opinion recommending that summary
judgment be granted in favor of the DEA Defendants. (Doc. 96).
Case 3:23-cv-18414-TKW-ZCB Document 97 Filed 11/21/25 Page 5 of 16

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). 	Thus, “if the evidence is
merely colorable or if it is not significantly probative, then summary
judgment is appropriate.” Edmondson v. Velvet Lifestyles, LLC, 43 F.4th
1153, 1159 (11th Cir. 2022) (cleaned up). 	Likewise, speculation or
conjecture cannot create a genuine issue of material fact. 	Cordoba v.
Dillard’s, Inc., 419 F.3d 1169, 1181 (11th Cir. 2005).
When 	evaluating 	a 	Fourth 	Amendment 	excessive 	force 	claim,
courts apply an objective reasonableness standard. 	Graham v. Connor,
490 U.S. 386, 388 (1989). To determine whether the amount of force used
was reasonable, court must balance “the nature and quality of the
intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests against the
countervailing governmental interests at stake.” Id. at 396 (cleaned up).
“Not every push or shove, even if it may later seem unnecessary in the
Case 3:23-cv-18414-TKW-ZCB Document 97 Filed 11/21/25 Page 6 of 16

7
peace of a judge’s chambers, violates the Fourth Amendment.” 	Id.
(cleaned up). 	And the Eleventh Circuit “has long declined to entertain
claims of excessive force predicated upon the use of de minim[is] force by
law enforcement.” 	Croom v. Balkwill, 645 F.3d 1240, 1252 (11th Cir.
2011).
IV. 	Discussion
As explained below, Defendants Key, Coone, and Bertram are
entitled to summary judgment because no reasonable jury could find that
they used excessive force against Plaintiffs. 	The Court will proceed to
discuss each Defendant individually.
A. Defendant Key
Let’s start with the allegation that Defendant Key used excessive
force against Plaintiffs. What the record evidence shows without genuine
dispute is that Defendant Key used no force (let alone excessive force)
against Plaintiffs. 	According to Defendant Key’s sworn declaration and
his deposition testimony, Defendant Key never touched Plaintiffs. (Doc.
76-1 at 1-2; Doc. 76-2 at 21). 	And Plaintiffs confirmed during their
depositions that Defendant Key did not use any force against them. Here
are the relevant excerpts from Plaintiff Trinity Ingram’s deposition:
Q: So was—did Key push you to the floor?
Case 3:23-cv-18414-TKW-ZCB Document 97 Filed 11/21/25 Page 7 of 16

8
A: No.
Q: Did Key have a baton?
A: No.
. . . .
Q: Did Key put you in the zip ties?
A: No.
. . . .
Q: Did Key run over you?
A: No.
(Doc. 73-1 at 56-58). 	And now for the relevant excerpts from Plaintiff
Gloria Ingram’s deposition:
Q: Okay. Was it Key who told you to get to the ground?
A: No.
. . . .
Q: Did Key push you to the ground?
A: No.
Q: Did Key hit you with a baton?
A: No.
Q: Did Key step on you?
A: No, just rude.
(Doc. 73-2 at 48, 55).
According to Plaintiffs, force was used against them by a member(s)
of the SWAT team that initially made entry into the house. 	But it is
undisputed that Defendant Key was not a member of the SWAT team.4
4 (Doc. 76-1 at 1, 2) (“I am not now, nor have I ever been a member of
SWAT . . . . 	I remained across the street while SWAT team cleared the
residence.”); (Doc. 73-1 at 56) (Q: 	“And what about Key, was he part of
the SWAT team?” A: “No.”); (Doc. 73-2 at 38-39) (Q: “[Key] was not part
of the SWAT group?” A: “No.”).
Case 3:23-cv-18414-TKW-ZCB Document 97 Filed 11/21/25 Page 8 of 16

9
Rather, the record clearly shows that he was an investigator who did not
enter the house until after the SWAT team had secured it. 	So not only
does the record show that Defendant Key never used force against
Plaintiffs, it shows without genuine dispute that Defendant Key was not
even present in the house when the alleged excessive force was used by
members of the SWAT team.
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
Defendant Key, “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 Defendant Key used no force (let
alone excessive force) against Plaintiffs. 	Accordingly, Defendant Key is
entitled to summary judgment.
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 (11th Cir. 2017). 	Additionally, the statements made in
Plaintiffs’ response in opposition to the summary judgment motions are
unsworn. 	And “[u]nsworn statements . . . cannot be considered by a
district 	court 	in 	ruling on 	a summary judgment motion.” 	Carr v.
Tatangelo, 338 F.3d 1259, 1273 n.26 (11th Cir. 2003) (cleaned up).
Case 3:23-cv-18414-TKW-ZCB Document 97 Filed 11/21/25 Page 9 of 16

10
B. Defendant Coone
Similar to 	Defendant Key, the record evidence shows without
genuine dispute that Defendant Coone did not use force (let alone
excessive force) against Plaintiffs. According to Defendant Coone’s sworn
declaration, he never even encountered Plaintiff Trinity Ingram while he
was in the residence. 	(Doc. 76-11 at 2). 	And he “did not ever physically
touch 	[Plaintiff] 	Gloria 	Ingram, 	nor 	did 	[he] 	observe 	anyone 	else
physically touch [Plaintiff] Gloria Ingram.” 	(Id.). 	Plaintiffs confirmed
during their depositions that Defendant Coone did not use any force
against them. 	Here are the relevant excerpts from Plaintiff Trinity
Ingram’s deposition:
Q: Okay. What about Coone? Did Coone push you to the floor?
A: No.
Q: Did Coone have a baton?
A: No.
. . . .
Q: Did Coone put you in zip ties?
A: No.
. . . .
Q: Did Coone run over you?
A: No.
(Doc. 73-1 at 57-58). 	And now for the relevant excerpts from Plaintiff
Gloria Ingram’s deposition:
Q: And was it Coone who told you to get to the ground?
A: No.
Case 3:23-cv-18414-TKW-ZCB Document 97 Filed 11/21/25 Page 10 of 16

11
. . . .
Q: Okay. Did Coone knock you to the ground?
A: No.
Q: Did Coone hit you with a baton?
A: No.
Q: Did—did Coone step on you?
A: No.
(Doc. 73-2 at 48, 55).
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
Defendant Coone, “there is no genuine issue for trial.” 	Scott, 550 U.S. at
380. 	Here, what the record evidence shows without genuine dispute is
that Defendant Coone used no force (let alone excessive force) against
Plaintiffs. 	Accordingly, 	Defendant 	Coone 	is 	entitled 	to 	summary
judgment.
C. 	Defendant Bertram
1. 	Trinity Ingram’s claim against Defendant Bertram
Much like Defendants Key and Coone, the record evidence shows
without genuine dispute that Defendant Bertram did not use excessive
force 	against 	Plaintiffs. 	The 	Court 	will 	start 	with 	the 	claim 	that
Defendant Bertram used excessive force against Plaintiff Trinity Ingram.
According to Defendant Bertram’s sworn declaration, he did not interact
at all with Plaintiff Trinity Ingram during the execution of the search
Case 3:23-cv-18414-TKW-ZCB Document 97 Filed 11/21/25 Page 11 of 16

12
warrant. 	(Doc. 76-12 at 2). 	That statement is consistent with Plaintiff
Trinity Ingram’s deposition testimony, where she stated as follows:
Q: And you said Bertram did not push you to the floor, correct?
A: Yes. I said no.
Q: Okay. And Bertram did not have a baton?
A: No.
Q: All right. Did Bertram place you in the zip ties?
A: No.
. . . .
Q: And just to be clear because you said that they were—they ran
on top of you. Did Bertram run over you?
A: No.
(Doc. 73-1 at 57).
Because “the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier
of fact to find for” 	Plaintiff Trinity Ingram on her excessive force claim
against Defendant Bertram, “there is no genuine issue for trial.” 	Scott,
550 U.S. at 380. Here, what the record evidence shows without genuine
dispute is that Defendant Bertram used no force (let alone excessive
force) against Plaintiff Trinity Ingram. Accordingly, Defendant Bertram
is entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff Trinity Ingram’s claims
against him.
2. Gloria Ingram’s claim against Defendant Bertram.
The Court will now move to Plaintiff’s Gloria Ingram’s claim that
Defendant Bertram used excessive force against her. 	According to
Case 3:23-cv-18414-TKW-ZCB Document 97 Filed 11/21/25 Page 12 of 16

13
Defendant Bertram’s sworn declaration, he never ordered Plaintiff Gloria
Ingram to the ground, he never struck her, and he never stepped on her.
(Doc. 76-12 at 3). In Plaintiff Gloria Ingram’s deposition, she denied that
Defendant Bertram struck her or pushed her:
Q: All right. Did Bertram push you to the floor?
A: No, he did not.
Q: Did Bertram hit you with a baton?
A: No, he did not.
(Doc. 73-2 at 54). 	With regard to whether Defendant Bertram had
stepped on her while she was on the ground, Plaintiff Gloria Ingram
provided inconsistent testimony. 	She testified that Defendant Bertram
helped her up off the floor. (Id.). But she stated that she “can’t say that”
Defendant Bertram “did not” step on her because there were “so many of
them.” (Id.). Then later in her deposition Plaintiff Gloria Ingram stated
that Defendant Bertram did step on her. (Id. at 54-55). But when further
questioned, she stated that Defendant Bertram failed to “stop[] anybody
from stepping on top of me.” (Id. at 56).6
It is clear from reading the entire deposition that Plaintiff Gloria
Ingram was speculating about whether Defendant Bertram had stepped
6 	In 	any 	event, 	the 	first 	amended 	complaint 	says 	nothing 	about
Defendant Bertram—or any other Defendant for that matter—stepping
on or trampling over Plaintiff Gloria Ingram.
Case 3:23-cv-18414-TKW-ZCB Document 97 Filed 11/21/25 Page 13 of 16

14
on her. And “[s]peculation does not create a genuine issue of fact; instead,
it creates a false issue, the demolition of which is a primary goal of
summary judgment.” Stardust, 3007 LLC v. City of Brookhaven, 899 F.3d
1164, 1170 (11th Cir. 2018) (emphasis in original). 	Moreover, the
information in the record is insufficient for any rational trier of fact to
find that if Defendant Bertram did step on Plaintiff that he did so in a
manner that would constitute excessive force. If Defendant Bertram did
step on Plaintiff Gloria Ingram, such force was clearly de minimis under
the circumstances. 	See Croom v. Balkwill, 645 F.3d 1240, 1252-53 (11th
Cir. 2011) (finding officers did not use excessive force by pushing woman
to the ground and putting foot on her back to keep her down during the
execution of a search warrant).
Finally, the record blatantly contradicts any claim by Plaintiff
Gloria Ingram that she suffered injuries as a result of force used by
Defendant Bertram (or anybody else involved in the search warrant
execution). 	See Scott, 550 U.S. at 380 (“When opposing parties tell two
different stories, one of which is blatantly contradicted by the record, so
that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adopt that
version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary
judgment.”). 	The 	medical 	records 	(and 	deposition 	testimony)
Case 3:23-cv-18414-TKW-ZCB Document 97 Filed 11/21/25 Page 14 of 16

15
unequivocally undermine any claim that Plaintiff Gloria Ingram (or
Plaintiff Trinity Ingram) suffered the alleged injuries as a result of
conduct by Defendant Bertram or any other Defendant. Indeed, what the
information in the record shows is that Defendants did not cause the
alleged injuries set forth in the first amended complaint. 	Accordingly,
Defendant Bertram is entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff Gloria
Ingram’s claims against him. 7
V. 	Conclusion
For the reasons above, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that:
1. 	The motions for summary judgment filed by Defendants Key,
Coone, and Bertram (Docs. 77, 78, 85) be GRANTED.
2. 	The Clerk of Court be directed to withhold entering judgment
and closing the case until after the Court resolves any motions for
sanctions that may be filed by Defendants.8
7 Although Plaintiffs have not brought failure to intervene claims, such
claims would fail had they been made. 	There is nothing in the record
from which a rational juror could find that any of the Defendants
observed excessive force and failed to take action to stop it.
8 Defendants previously expressed an intention to seek sanctions in this
case. 	(Doc. 79). 	The Court reserved jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ former
counsel regarding the issue of possible sanctions. (Doc. 80).
Case 3:23-cv-18414-TKW-ZCB Document 97 Filed 11/21/25 Page 15 of 16

16
3. 	If any of the Defendants wish to pursue sanctions, such a
motion shall be filed within fourteen days of the district judge’s ruling
on this report and recommendation. (Doc. 79-6).
At Pensacola, Florida this 21st 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.
Case 3:23-cv-18414-TKW-ZCB Document 97 Filed 11/21/25 Page 16 of 16