to cause harm” instead of to restore order. See Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 7, 112 S.Ct. 995, 117 L.Ed.2d 156 (1992); Fillmore v. Page, 358 F.3d 496, 503 (7th Cir.2004). Johnson insists that Moeller struck him six to eight times in the head. But “[w]hen 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.” Scott, 127 S.Ct. at 1776. No reasonable juror could believe Johnson’s version of events because the security tape shows that after Johnson hit Calloway, Moeller struck him only once in the back with the metal restraints, drove him to the floor, and handcuffed him. See id. (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, Johnson submitted an unsigned
holding that when a video recording of an alleged excessive force incident contradicts the nonmoving partys version of the incident to the extent 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 holding that summary judgment should have been granted because motorists version of facts was utterly discredited by videotape of incident holding that district court should not have granted summary judgment solely on basis that a motion for summary judgment was not opposed holding that district court should not have granted summary judgment solely on basis that motion for summary judgment was not opposed holding that on summary judgment a court should not adopt a version of the facts blatantly contradicted by the record