Filed: Oct. 02, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: Case: 13-11962 Date Filed: 10/02/2013 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 13-11962 Non-Argument Calendar _ District No. 1:12-cv-00500-TWT RICKY J. SAMPSON, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus KASIM REED, in his official capacity as Mayor of the City of Atlanta, et al., Defendants, ROBERT C. GODWIN, individually, REGINALD PETTIS, individually, Defendants-Appellants. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ge
Summary: Case: 13-11962 Date Filed: 10/02/2013 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 13-11962 Non-Argument Calendar _ District No. 1:12-cv-00500-TWT RICKY J. SAMPSON, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus KASIM REED, in his official capacity as Mayor of the City of Atlanta, et al., Defendants, ROBERT C. GODWIN, individually, REGINALD PETTIS, individually, Defendants-Appellants. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Geo..
More
Case: 13-11962 Date Filed: 10/02/2013 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 13-11962 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ District No. 1:12-cv-00500-TWT RICKY J. SAMPSON, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus KASIM REED, in his official capacity as Mayor of the City of Atlanta, et al., Defendants, ROBERT C. GODWIN, individually, REGINALD PETTIS, individually, Defendants-Appellants. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ________________________ (October 2, 2013) Before WILSON, HILL, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. Case: 13-11962 Date Filed: 10/02/2013 Page: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Robert Godwin and Reginald Pettis appeal the denial of their motions for summary judgment in this Section 1983 action against them by plaintiff, Ricky Sampson. The district court, in a well-reasoned and thorough opinion, denied summary judgment as to the officers’ affirmative defenses of qualified immunity and official immunity. The district court also found that Sampson had presented sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact as to his claims of false imprisonment and abuse in being arrested. Finally, the district court held that there was sufficient evidence to support Sampson’s battery claim against Officer Pettis, but not against Officer Godwin, whom the undisputed evidence showed did not touch Sampson. Sampson does not appeal the grant of summary judgment to Officer Godwin on this claim. We have reviewed the record in this case and the district court’s thoughtful opinion. Finding no reversible error, we shall affirm. AFFIRMED and REMANDED for further proceedings. 2