VELAZQUEZ v. WILSON

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
EMMANUEL VELAZQUEZ,
Plaintiff,
vs. 	Case No.: 3:24cv175/MCR/ZCB
MICHAEL WILSON,
Defendant.
_____________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This is a pro se prisoner civil rights case filed under 42 U.S.C. §
1983. 	Plaintiff, Emmanuel Velazquez, is an inmate of the Florida
Department of Corrections (FDOC). 	His amended complaint asserts
Eighth Amendment claims of excessive force against FDOC Officer
Defendant Michael Wilson. 	(Doc. 9). 	Defendant moved for summary
judgment (Doc. 47), and Plaintiff responded in opposition (Doc. 52). 	For
the reasons below, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment should be
granted.
Case 3:24-cv-00175-MCR-ZCB Document 57 Filed 12/22/25 Page 1 of 21

2
I. 	Factual Background
A. 	Plaintiff’s version of events1
On May 5, 2023, around 8:00 a.m., Plaintiff was in his dorm at
Century Correctional Institution. 	(Doc. 9 at 5). 	He claims he was
“actively engaging in drafting grievances” in his cell when Defendant
sprayed him with a chemical agent. 	(Id.). 	Plaintiff claims he tried to
reach the security port on his cell door to submit to handcuffs, but
Defendant reached his arm through the door and “lacerated Plaintiff’s
right hand, with an unknown object, causing Plaintiff’s finger to bleed
and he felt pain throughout his arm.” 	(Id.). 	Plaintiff claims Defendant
applied another round of pepper spray after Defendant cut his finger.
(Id.).
A supervisor then appeared and took Plaintiff to a decontamination
shower and a post-use-of-force examination by the medical staff. 	(Id. at
1 Plaintiff’s version of events is taken from his amended complaint, which
was signed under penalty of perjury. (Doc. 9 at 13). Plaintiff’s response
to the motion for summary judgment is unsworn. Thus, the Court cannot
rely on it. 	See Carr v. Tatangelo, 338 F.3d 1259, 1273 n. 26 (11th Cir.
2003) (“Unsworn statements do not meet the requirements of Fed. Rule
Civ. Proc. 56(e) and cannot be considered by a district court in ruling on
a summary judgment motion.”) (cleaned up).
Case 3:24-cv-00175-MCR-ZCB Document 57 Filed 12/22/25 Page 2 of 21

3
5-6). During the examination, Plaintiff claims the nurse documented the
injury to his finger. (Id. at 6). Plaintiff claims he suffers from permanent
nerve damage, arthritis, muscle spasms, uncontrollable twitching, and
movement restriction in his finger because of Defendant’s actions. (Id.).
According to Plaintiff, Defendant used excessive force in violation of the
Eighth Amendment. 	(Id. 	at 7). 	Plaintiff seeks compensatory and
punitive damages. (Id.).
B. 	Defendant’s version of events
Defendant tells a different story about what happened. Defendant
states 	that 	on 	May 	5, 	2023, 	at 	approximately 	7:45 	a.m., 	he 	was
monitoring Plaintiff because of “continued disorderly conduct.” (Doc. 49-
1 at 3-4). 	Plaintiff had his property removed a few days before, and he
was in his cell with none of his personal property. (Doc. 49-6 at 13). That
morning, 	Plaintiff 	flooded 	his 	cell 	and 	refused 	to 	submit 	to 	hand
restraints. (Doc. 49-1 at 4).
Around 7:58 a.m., Plaintiff began using a sheet from his mattress
to try to activate the fire sprinkler in his cell. 	(Id.). 	Specifically,
Defendant states Plaintiff stood on the toilet in his cell and began
throwing the sheet at the sprinkler. (Id.). Defendant ordered Plaintiff to
Case 3:24-cv-00175-MCR-ZCB Document 57 Filed 12/22/25 Page 3 of 21

4
stop, but Plaintiff continued until the sheet was tangled in the sprinkler.
(Id.). 	Defendant responded by spraying a chemical agent through the
handcuffing portal of the cell door to stop Plaintiff from activating the
sprinkler. 	(Id.). 	After Defendant sprayed the chemical agent, the sheet
fell to the ground. (Id.).
Sergeant Timothy Adkison, a supervisor, arrived at the cell. 	He
ordered Plaintiff to submit to hand restraints. 	(Id.). 	Plaintiff did not
comply with Sergeant Adkison’s order. (Id.). Instead, Plaintiff picked up
the sheet, stepped back on the toilet, and resumed his efforts to activate
the sprinkler. 	(Id.). 	Sergeant Adkison ordered Plaintiff to get off the
toilet. 	(Id.). 	Plaintiff caught the sheet on the sprinkler a second time,
and he began pulling on the sheet. 	(Id.). 	Sergeant Adkison handed
Defendant his chemical spray cannister, and Defendant used it to spray
a chemical agent into Plaintiff’s cell a second time. 	(Id.). 	Plaintiff then
stopped his attempt to activate the sprinkler. 	(Id.).
Next, Plaintiff submitted to hand restraints and was taken to a
decontamination shower. 	(Doc. 47 at 4). 	He was also assessed by the
medical staff during a post-use-of-force exam. (Id.). 	During that exam,
the nurse noted that Plaintiff complained of a cut to his finger. (Doc. 49-
Case 3:24-cv-00175-MCR-ZCB Document 57 Filed 12/22/25 Page 4 of 21

5
5 at 362). 	But the nurse wrote that there was only a “superficial
laceration” to his right-hand ring finger “with no active bleeding.” 	(Id.).
The nurse instructed Plaintiff to keep his finger clean and to watch for
any signs of infection. (Id.).
Ten days later, Plaintiff submitted a sick call request complaining
of “internal pain to his right wedding finger.” 	(Doc. 49-5 at 347-49). He
denied the pain radiated and rated his pain a 5 out of 10. (Id. at 347-48).
He admitted to being able to bend and straighten the joint. (Id. at 348).
The nurse noted no swelling or difference in skin temperature. (Id.). She
recommended acetaminophen and instructed Plaintiff to return if he had
any new symptoms. (Id.). This was the only sick call Plaintiff requested
about his finger. (See Doc. 49-5).
C. 	Video evidence
In support of his motion for summary judgment, Defendant has
provided two videos. 	The first is a fixed wing camera view of the
dormitory hallway. (Doc. 49-2). The footage begins at 7:58 a.m., and here
is what it shows.
When the video starts, water can be seen flowing out of Plaintiff’s
cell and pouring into the hallway. 	(7:58:00). 	Defendant approaches
Case 3:24-cv-00175-MCR-ZCB Document 57 Filed 12/22/25 Page 5 of 21

6
Plaintiff’s cell to look through the window. 	(7:58:18-7:58:55). 	He then
backs away from the cell—out of the way of the water pooling by
Plaintiff’s cell door. 	Defendant continues to watch Plaintiff from that
vantage point. 	(7:58:55). 	Plaintiff attempts to shut the handcuffing
portal from inside his cell. 	(7:59:10-7:59:35). Defendant approaches the
cell to see what Plaintiff is doing. 	(7:59:58). 	Defendant then opens the
handcuffing portal, but Plaintiff appears to stick his hand out of the
portal. Defendant flinches back, then sprays chemical agent through the
handcuffing portal. (8:00:00-8:00:20).
After Defendant sprays the 	chemical agent, 	Sergeant Adkison
approaches Plaintiff’s cell. (8:00:27). Although the handcuffing portal is
open, Plaintiff does not place his hands through the handcuffing portal.
Sergeant Adkison says, “He’s doing it again.” 	(8:00:38-41). 	Sergeant
Adkison then hands his chemical spray cannister to Defendant, who
reaches in Plaintiff’s cell via the handcuffing portal and sprays Plaintiff’s
cell a second time. 	(8:00:35-8:00:45). 	Plaintiff can be seen in the front
corner of his cell while Defendant administers the spray. (8:00:41).
Defendant then walks away while Sergeant Adkison remains by
Plaintiff’s cell. 	(8:00:45-8:01:25). 	More officers arrive, and one of them
Case 3:24-cv-00175-MCR-ZCB Document 57 Filed 12/22/25 Page 6 of 21

7
talks to Plaintiff through his cell and asks if he will submit to restraints.
(8:01:25-8:01:35). 	The officer walks away and returns several minutes
later 	with 	Sergeant 	Adkison, 	who 	is 	holding 	a 	handheld 	camera.
(8:07:35). 	The fixed wing video continues for several minutes. 	The
remainder of the video shows Sergeant Adkison continuing to record
Plaintiff 	with 	the 	handheld 	camera, 	Plaintiff 	being 	escorted 	to 	a
decontamination shower, and other inmates and officers cleaning the
water and chemical spray from Plaintiff’s cell. 	The video ends at 8:39
a.m.
The second video is footage from the handheld camera. (Doc. 49-4).
The recording began at 8:07 a.m., after the use of force. (0:18). This video
shows an officer unlocking the handcuffing portal and asking Plaintiff
whether he will submit to hand restraints and come out of his cell for a
decontamination shower. 	(1:00-1:05). 	Plaintiff does not comply. 	(1:12-
1:22). 	The officer tells Plaintiff to either submit to restraints so that he
can be escorted to a decontamination shower, or else a cell extraction
team will remove him from the cell. (1:22-1:30). Plaintiff does not comply
and talks back to the officer. (Id.). The officer walks away. (1:30). The
video continues. 	Plaintiff stands in front of his cell window talking, but
Case 3:24-cv-00175-MCR-ZCB Document 57 Filed 12/22/25 Page 7 of 21

8
it is unclear what he is saying. (1:30-1:48). He begins signing in front of
the window with his right hand. (1:52). His right hand is clearly visible
through the window, and it appears uninjured. 	There is no indication of
blood on his hand.
The officer then returns with a nurse. 	(17:21). 	The nurse tells
Plaintiff how important it is to decontaminate, and she states that she
will assess Plaintiff after he has a decontamination shower. 	(17:26-
18:13). 	The officer unlocks the handcuffing portal and tells Plaintiff
again to submit to hand restraints. 	(18:40-18:49). 	This time, Plaintiff
complies. 	(18:45-19:20). 	When the door to Plaintiff’s cell is opened, the
video shows that the cell is floor is covered with water. (20:58).
Plaintiff is then escorted to a decontamination shower. 	(21:38-
22:00). After the shower, Plaintiff is provided a new pair of boxer shorts
and escorted to medical for a post-use-of-force exam. 	(31:48-32:00).
Plaintiff is examined by the nurse. (32:36). The nurse looks at Plaintiff’s
hand (37:02), but she does not dress or bandage it. 	Plaintiff is then
escorted back to his cell. 	(39:00-41:00). 	The video ends at 8:49 a.m.
(41:30-41:35).
Case 3:24-cv-00175-MCR-ZCB Document 57 Filed 12/22/25 Page 8 of 21

9
II. 	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
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). 	Likewise, speculation or
Case 3:24-cv-00175-MCR-ZCB Document 57 Filed 12/22/25 Page 9 of 21

10
conjecture cannot create a genuine issue of material fact. 	Cordoba v.
Dillard’s, Inc., 419 F.3d 1169, 1181 (11th Cir. 2005).
When the plaintiff’s version of events is “blatantly contradicted” by
the record, a court “should not adopt that version of the facts for purposes
of ruling on a motion for summary judgment.” 	Scott, 550 U.S. at 380.
Thus, when a video recording of an incident clearly contradicts the
plaintiff’s version of events, the court views the evidence in the light
depicted by the video. 	Id. at 380-81.
III. 	Discussion
Plaintiff claims Defendant violated the Eighth Amendment by
using 	excessive 	force 	against 	him—namely, 	by 	maliciously 	and
sadistically applying chemical spray and by lacerating his finger with an
unknown object. 	(Doc. 9 at 5). 	In his motion for summary judgment,
Defendant argues that Plaintiff has failed to come forward with evidence
from which a reasonable jury could find a constitutional violation. 	The
Court agrees with Defendant.
The “core judicial inquiry” in considering an Eighth Amendment
claim of excessive force is “whether force was applied in a good-faith effort
to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause
Case 3:24-cv-00175-MCR-ZCB Document 57 Filed 12/22/25 Page 10 of 21

11
harm.” Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 7 (1992). “When prison officials
maliciously and sadistically use force to cause harm,” the Supreme Court
recognized, “contemporary standards of decency always are violated . . . .
whether or not significant injury is evident.” 	Id. at 9.
To determine whether the application of force was done in good
faith or maliciously and sadistically, courts are required to consider the
following factors: 	“(1) the need for the application of force; (2) the
relationship between the need and the amount of force that was used; (3)
the extent of the injury inflicted upon the prisoner; (4) the extent of the
threat to the safety of staff and inmates; and (5) any efforts to temper the
severity of a forceful response.” 	Sears v. Roberts, 922 F.3d 1199, 1205
(11th Cir. 2019) (cleaned up). 	From the consideration of such factors,
“inferences may be drawn as to whether the use of force could plausibly
have been thought necessary, or instead evinced such wantonness with
respect to the unjustified infliction of harm as is tantamount to a knowing
willingness that it occur.” 	Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 321 (1986).
An 	inmate 	who 	has 	brought 	an 	excessive 	force 	claim 	“may 	avoid
summary 	judgment 	only 	if 	the 	evidence 	viewed 	in 	the 	light 	most
favorable to him goes beyond a mere dispute over the reasonableness of
Case 3:24-cv-00175-MCR-ZCB Document 57 Filed 12/22/25 Page 11 of 21

12
the force used and will support a reliable inference of wantonness in the
infliction of pain.” 	Ledlow v. Givens, 500 F. App’x 910, 913 (11th Cir.
2012) (cleaned up).
Applying the 	factors set forth above, 	Defendant 	is entitled to
summary judgment because the evidence before the Court does not
support a reliable inference of wantonness in the use of force. 	Before
looking at the factors individually, it is important to point out that the
video evidence clearly contradicts the version of events that Plaintiff has
set forth in his complaint. 	More specifically, the video shows that
Plaintiff 	was 	not 	“actively 	engag[ed] 	in 	drafting 	grievances” 	when
Defendant sprayed him with chemical spray. 	Nor does the video show
Defendant “reach[ing] his arms through the port [to] lacerate Plaintiff’s
right hand.” (Doc. 9 at 5). Rather, the video shows Plaintiff flooding his
cell and refusing commands to submit to hand restraints. And the video
shows that once Plaintiff finally complied with the instructions of officers,
he was escorted from the cell, taken to a decontamination shower, given
clean undergarments, and evaluated by a nurse. 	Because Plaintiff’s
version of events is blatantly contradicted by the video evidence, the
Case 3:24-cv-00175-MCR-ZCB Document 57 Filed 12/22/25 Page 12 of 21

13
Court will “view[] the facts in the light depicted by the videotape.” Scott,
550 U.S. at 381.
Turning now to the factors, the Court looks first to the need for the
application of force. 	Contrary to Plaintiff’s claim that he was in his cell
“actively engaging in drafting grievances,” (Doc. 9 at 5), when Defendant
sprayed him with a chemical agent, the evidence in the record shows that
Plaintiff was sprayed because he was flooding his cell and actively
refusing commands.2 	The video evidence also refutes Plaintiff’s claim
that Defendant reached his arms through the portal to lacerate Plaintiff’s
finger with an object. At no point does the video show Defendant reaching
into the cell with an object to lacerate Plaintiff’s finger.
Defendant 	contends 	Plaintiff 	was 	attempting 	to 	trigger 	the
sprinkler system to further flood his cell. 	To support his contention,
Defendant has submitted his Use of Force Incident Report, which was
2 	Plaintiff admits in his deposition that his property—including his
documents, pen, and paper—was taken out of his cell the morning of the
incident. (Doc. 49-6 at 12). He states that he was in a “strip cell with no
property,” with “nothing but [his] boxers on” and that “[e]verything else
was out of the cell” at the time force was used. (Id. at 13); see also (id. at
14) (admitting he did not have pen and paper in his cell to write with).
This further corroborates what the video shows—i.e., Plaintiff was not
“actively writing grievances” when Defendant sprayed chemical agent
into his cell.
Case 3:24-cv-00175-MCR-ZCB Document 57 Filed 12/22/25 Page 13 of 21

14
signed under penalty of perjury. 	(Doc. 49-1 at 7-9). 	The report states
that Plaintiff was flooding his cell and repeatedly refusing to submit to
hand restraints. 	(Id. at 7). 	Defendant further states Plaintiff retrieved
a piece of sheet from under the mattress, stood on the toilet, and began
to throw the piece of sheet at the sprinkler. 	(Id.). 	Defendant claims he
ordered Plaintiff to stop, but Plaintiff continued until one end of the sheet
was tangled in the sprinkler. 	(Id.). 	When Plaintiff saw Defendant
approach, Defendant states Plaintiff “got down from the toilet and began
to pull the piece of sheet, attempting to activate the fire suppression
system.” 	(Id.). 	Defendant says that is when he administered chemical
agent. (Id.).
After the application of chemical agent, Defendant says the sheet
fell to the ground. 	(Id.). 	Defendant states that Sergeant Adkison
approached 	Plaintiff’s 	cell 	and 	ordered 	Plaintiff 	to 	submit 	to 	hand
restraints.3 	(Id.). 	Instead, Plaintiff picked up the piece of sheet and
stepped back up onto the toilet. (Id.). Sergeant Adkison ordered Plaintiff
3 Plaintiff does not deny that he was given an order to submit to hand
restraints before the second round of chemical spray. 	(Doc. 9 at 5)
(admitting that he “tried” to submit to hand restraints, but did not submit
to the restraints before the second round of chemical spray).
Case 3:24-cv-00175-MCR-ZCB Document 57 Filed 12/22/25 Page 14 of 21

15
to get off the toilet. 	(Id.). 	Plaintiff caught the piece of sheet on the fire
suppression system, stepped down from the toilet, and began to pull on
the piece of sheet. (Id.). Sergeant Adkison gave Defendant his chemical
agent cannister, and Defendant applied a second stream of chemical
agent. 	(Id.). 	After Defendant applied the second stream of chemical
agent, Plaintiff stopped his attempts to activate the fire sprinkler and all
force ceased. 	(Id.). 	The first factor, therefore, favors Defendant. 	See
Burke v. Bowns, 653 F. App’x 683, 696 (11th Cir. 2016) (finding officer
had a need to use chemical agent spray where inmate refused orders).
The Court now moves to the second and third factors, which are the
relationship between the need and the amount of force that was used and
the extent of any injury to the prisoner. An inmate flooding his cell and
refusing to follow orders is disruptive of prison operations, and “[i]f the
operations of a prison are disturbed, there is the potential for great risk
to the safety of all involved.” 	White v. Irving, No. 6:14cv77, 2016 WL
4787281, at *6 (S.D. Ga. July 6, 2016), adopted by 2016 WL 4766488
(Sept. 12, 2016). 	As the Eleventh Circuit has previously recognized, a
short burst of pepper spray “[wa]s not disproportionate to the need to
control an inmate who ha[d] failed to obey a jailer’s orders.” 	Danley v.
Case 3:24-cv-00175-MCR-ZCB Document 57 Filed 12/22/25 Page 15 of 21

16
Allen, 540 F.3d 1298, 1304, 1307 (11th Cir. 2008). 	According to the
Eleventh Circuit, 	the short burst of pepper spray was “a reasonable
response to th[e] threat” of an inmate “creat[ing] a disturbance by failing
to obey orders.” 	Id. at 1308; see also Orange v. Prescott, No. 22-10955,
2024 WL 1156573, at *6 (11th Cir. Mar. 18, 2024) (explaining that the
Eleventh Circuit has recognized that pepper spray is an accepted non-
lethal means of controlling unruly inmates). As in Danley, the two short
bursts 	of 	chemical 	agent 	spray 	used 	in 	this 	case 	were 	not
disproportionate to the need to control a disorderly inmate who had
flooded his cell, was refusing to follow orders, and appeared to be
tampering with the fire sprinkler system.
Additionally, the minor nature of Plaintiff’s injuries supports the
finding that the short bursts of chemical agent spray were a minimal
amount of force. 	See Logan v. Smith, 439 F. App’x 798, 800 (11th Cir.
2011) (explaining that “the extent of injury is a relevant factor in
determining whether the use of force could plausibly have been thought
necessary under the circumstances and may be an indication of the
amount of force applied.”); 	see also White, 2016 WL 4787281, at *6
(explaining that “[w]hile injury and the amount of force are imperfectly
Case 3:24-cv-00175-MCR-ZCB Document 57 Filed 12/22/25 Page 16 of 21

17
correlated, here the indisputably minimal injuries that Plaintiff suffered
reveal that Defendant only applied minimal force.”).
Plaintiff alleges he suffered permanent nerve damage, arthritis,
muscle spasms, and limited range of motion to his right ring finger as a
result of Defendant’s use of force. 	(Doc. 9 at 6). 	But Plaintiff’s claim is
contradicted by the contemporaneously created medical records, which
show he suffered only a superficial laceration to his right-hand ring
finger with no active bleeding and no symptoms of an infection. (Doc. 49-
1 at 12-14; Doc. 49-5 at 2, 362-63); see Whitehead v. Burnside, 403 F.
App’x 401, 403 (11th Cir. 2010) (“Self-serving statements by a plaintiff do
not 	create 	a 	question 	of 	fact 	in 	the 	face 	of 	contradictory,
contemporaneously created medical records.”). 	Medical staff advised
Plaintiff to keep the superficial laceration clean with soap and water and
watch for signs of an infection. 	(Doc. 49-5 at 363). 	He was also advised
to use sick call if he needed further medical attention. 4 	(Id.).
4 The accuracy of the medical records is not disputed in this case. Indeed,
Plaintiff relies on the nurse’s medical record in his verified complaint.
(Doc. 9 at 6) (stating that the nurse “documented Plaintiff’s wounded
finger as a result of Defendant’s malicious attack”).
Case 3:24-cv-00175-MCR-ZCB Document 57 Filed 12/22/25 Page 17 of 21

18
Moreover, video evidence immediately after the incident showed no
apparent injuries to Plaintiff’s finger. 	Indeed, Plaintiff used his right
hand to sign through the cell window for several minutes after the
encounter. Two weeks later, Plaintiff submitted a sick call complaining
of “internal pain to his right wedding finger.” 	(Doc. 49-5 at 351). 	Upon
examination, he denied that his pain radiated, rated his pain a 5 out of
10, denied numbness and tingling, was able to bend and straighten the
joint, and presented no temperature changes or swelling. (Id. at 347-48).
Records do not show Plaintiff visited medical to complain of his finger
again. Nor is there anything in the medical records to show that he was
diagnosed with any of the issues he claims resulted from his finger being
cut. 	The minor nature of Plaintiff’s injuries supports the finding that
Defendant did not use excessive force.
The 	Court 	now 	moves 	to 	the 	fourth 	factor, 	which 	requires 	a
consideration of the extent of the threat to the safety of staff and inmates
posed by Plaintiff. 	Here, Plaintiff’s flooding of his cell, refusal to follow
instructions to submit to hand restraints, and attempts to tamper with
the sprinkler system clearly posed a risk to the safe and secure operation
of the prison. 	And Defendant—by using two short bursts of chemical
Case 3:24-cv-00175-MCR-ZCB Document 57 Filed 12/22/25 Page 18 of 21

19
spray—used a reasonable amount of force in response to Plaintiff’s
conduct. 	See Ort v. White, 813 F.2d 318, 325 (11th Cir. 1987) (stating
that prison officials must “have the authority to use that amount of force
or those coercive measures reasonably necessary to enforce an inmate’s
compliance with valid prison rules and to protect themselves and the
other inmates”); see also Carter v. McCullen, No. 22-10499, 2023 WL
6120616, at *5 (11th Cir. Sept. 19, 2023) (finding that the use of chemical
spray was not disproportionate to the need to control disorderly behavior
and was a reasonable response to the threat of a disturbance created by
failure to obey orders).
Finally, the last factor—efforts made to temper the severity of the
use of force—also weighs in Defendant’s favor. The effects of the chemical
spray were tempered by officers removing Plaintiff from the cell and
taking 	him 	to 	a 	decontamination 	shower 	once 	he 	agreed 	to 	hand
restraints. 	Indeed, officers requested a nurse come and inform Plaintiff
of the importance of a decontamination shower when Plaintiff continued
to refuse orders to submit to hand restraints. 	Officers also provided
Plaintiff with a medical exam after the use of force. The efforts to temper
the severity of the use of force are something the Eleventh Circuit has
Case 3:24-cv-00175-MCR-ZCB Document 57 Filed 12/22/25 Page 19 of 21

20
considered when evaluating this factor. See Cockrell v. Sparks, 510 F.3d
1307, 1312 (11th Cir. 2007) (stating that the prison guards’ summoning
of medical assistance for the inmate “tempered the severity of the forceful
response 	and 	[made] 	it 	less 	likely 	that 	either 	of 	them 	was 	acting
sadistically instead of in good faith”) (cleaned up); see also Orange, 2024
WL 1156573, at *5-6 (stating that officers’ taking inmate to a nurse and
then permitting him to shower and decontaminate suggested an effort to
temper the severity of the use of chemical spray); Carter, 2023 WL
6120616, at *5 (stating that officers’ permitting inmate to cover his face,
wash the affected areas of his body, and receive medical care after the
use of chemical spray weighed in favor of officers in excessive force
analysis). The final factor, therefore, weighs in favor of Defendant.
Having 	considered 	all 	the 	factors, 	the 	Court 	finds 	that 	no
reasonable 	juror 	could 	conclude 	that 	Defendant 	applied 	force
“maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.” 	Ledlow, 500 F. App’x at
912. 	What happened in this case is a far cry from the type of egregious
conduct that violates “contemporary standards of decency” as required
for an Eighth Amendment violation. See Hudson, 503 U.S. at 9. Because
the evidence in the record will not “support a reliable inference of
Case 3:24-cv-00175-MCR-ZCB Document 57 Filed 12/22/25 Page 20 of 21

21
wantonness in the infliction of pain . . . the case should not go to the jury.”
Whitley, 475 U.S. at 322. 	Defendant, therefore, is entitled to summary
judgment on Plaintiff’s excessive force claim.
IV. 	Conclusion
For the reasons above, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that:
1. 	Defendant’s 	motion 	for 	summary 	judgment 	(Doc. 	47) 	be
GRANTED.
2. 	The Clerk of Court be directed to enter judgment accordingly
and close this case.
At Pensacola, Florida this 22nd day of December 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 3:24-cv-00175-MCR-ZCB Document 57 Filed 12/22/25 Page 21 of 21