STROUD

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

GARY SCOTT STROUD,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:23cv235-RH-MAF

COLONEL JACOBS et al.,

Defendants.

__________________________/

ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT

The plaintiff was an inmate in a state correctional facility. A fellow inmate

threatened the plaintiff, and he promptly reported the threat to the officer in charge.

The plaintiff was placed in administrative confinement while officials investigated

and an administrative process went forward. The plaintiff was returned to the

general population five weeks after reporting the threat. Less than two hours later,

the plaintiff was beaten by other inmates.

In this action the plaintiff asserts a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against

three officials. The plaintiff asserts the defendants failed to take constitutionally

adequate steps to protect him. The defendants have moved for summary judgment.

The motion is before the court on the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation, which recommends granting the motion. There have been no

objections.

The report and recommendation concludes the record lacks evidence

sufficient to support a finding of a constitutional violation. Perhaps so. The

plaintiff reported a threat related to his indebtedness to unidentified inmates.

Officials investigated but could not identify the source of the threat or verify that

the plaintiff faced a substantial risk. In any event, the plaintiff reported that he

learned after the beating that he was also at risk because other inmates believed he

had cooperated with law enforcement. It thus is not clear the threat the plaintiff

reported—the threat based on his indebtedness to other inmates—had anything to

do with the beating.

A definitive ruling need not be made on whether the record could support a

finding of a constitutional violation. Either way, the defendants have qualified

immunity. Qualified immunity applies to damages claims against public officers

acting within their discretionary authority and protects “all but the plainly

incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S.

335, 341 (1986). See generally Carroll v. Carman, 574 U.S. 13 (2014); Hope v.

Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (2002); Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982). Thus a

public officer may be held individually liable only if the officer’s conduct violates

clearly established law.

A prison official must not be deliberately indifferent to an inmate’s

substantial risk of harm at the hands of another inmate. This is clearly established

by Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994), and its progeny. But no decision

or clearly applicable principle establishes that in the circumstances known to the

defendants here, more was required than what they did. They did not knowingly

violate the law. They have qualified immunity.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The report and recommendation is accepted.

2. The summary-judgment motion, ECF No. 136, is granted.

3. The clerk must enter judgment stating, “This action was resolved on a

summary-judgment motion. It is adjudged that the plaintiff Gary Scott Stroud

recover nothing on his claims against the defendants Colonel Jacobs, Barfield, and

K. Stanford. The claims are dismissed on the merits.”

4. The clerk must close the file.

SO ORDERED on August 20, 2026.

s/Robert L. Hinkle

United States District Judge