[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
FEB 14, 2012
No. 11-13704 JOHN LEY
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 5:10-cv-00055-CAR
DEMETRIUS GATLING,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
SHANE ROLAND,
JESSIE MINCEY,
Defendants-Appellants,
RICHARD MARSHALL BOAN,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia
(February 14, 2012)
Before TJOFLAT, CARNES and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
In this civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff Gatling
claimed that appellants Roland and Mincey, officers of the Middle College of
Georgia Police Department, searched his person and took him into custody
without arguable probable cause in violation of his rights under the Fourth
Amendment.1 Following discovery, Roland and Mincey moved the district court
for summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity. The court denied
their motion, concluding that the evidence, considered in the light most favorable
to Gatling, established that the conduct Roland and Mincey engaged in violated
clearly established Fourth Amendment rights of which a reasonable person would
have known. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738, 73
L.Ed.2d 396 (1982).
Roland and Mincey now appeal the district court’s qualified immunity
ruling. We affirm. The court correctly held that the evidence considered in the
light most favorable to Gatling2 demonstrated that Roland and Mincey’s conduct
violated clearly established Fourth Amendment rights.
1
The Fourth Amendment is applicable to the States under the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment. See Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684 (1961).
2
In considering the evidence in the light most favorable to Gatling, the district court
properly eliminated, for summary judgment purposes, all factual disputes.
2
AFFIRMED.
3