[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-10343 August 21, 2006
Non-Argument Calendar THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________ CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 03-81059-CV-DTKH
THOMAS E. TURNER,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
SHERIFF OF PALM BEACH COUNTY,
Ric L. Bradshaw, Sheriff,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(August 21, 2006)
Before ANDERSON, MARCUS and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Defendant appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for
attorney’s fees. Defendant claims that the district court abused its discretion in
refusing to award attorney’s fees because it erred as a matter of law in finding that
the appellee’s lawsuit did not meet the frivolity standards of applicable case law.
Appellant misconstrues the nature of the district court’s order. The district
court did not commit error as a matter of law. On the contrary, the district court
accurately stated the applicable case law, and the decision to deny the motion was
an exercise of the district court’s broad discretion to determine whether a
prevailing party should be awarded attorney’s fees. Having reviewed the record
and the pleadings of the parties in the case, the district court reasoned that
appellee’s “continued pursuit of his employment discrimination claim” was not so
unreasonable as to satisfy the governing standards of frivolity. This was an
interpretation of the facts and circumstances surrounding the case, not an
erroneous application or interpretation of the applicable case law. In light of the
evidence, especially that with respect to comparator Kronsperger, we conclude
that the district court did not abuse its discretion. Accordingly, the order of the
district court must be
AFFIRMED.1
1
Appellant’s Motion for Leave to File a Reply Brief Out of Time is granted.
2