Nelson Henry v. Joseph Iannone and James Deacetis
S.D. Florida · Jan 27, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- S.D. Florida
- Record ID
- nelson-henry-v-joseph-iannone-and-james-deacetis-2026-01-27
- Observed outcome
- The court accepted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the plaintiff's claims.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The court identified that the pro se plaintiff included hallucinated case law quotations in his objections to a magistrate judge's report. The court explicitly stated that the cited passages from Sims v. Metro. Dade Cnty. and Shaw v. City of Selma do not appear in those opinions and were used to incorrectly challenge the court's reliance on video evidence.
False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff quoted a passage attributed to Sims v. Metro. Dade Cnty. that the court found does not appear in that opinion and was used to argue summary-judgment standards regarding video evidence. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff relied on a purported quotation from Shaw v. City of Selma that the court characterized as among the plaintiff's seemingly hallucinated quotations from case law.
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in S.D. Florida, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fabricated Quotes
- Civil Rights
- Trial
- None Adjudicated
- AI attribution
- Reported
- Recorded tool
- AI (implied, unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- The district court reviewed the magistrate judge's report and recommendation de novo following the pro se plaintiff's timely objections. The court accepted the report and granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Confirm that every authority actually supports the proposition for which it is offered.