David C. Warth v. Thomas Williamson

USCA11 Case: 25-13391 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 03/02/2026 Page: 1 of 20

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 25-13391

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

DAVID C. WARTH,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

GWINNETT COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, et al.,

Defendants,

THOMAS WILLIAMSON,

Individually and in his official capacity as an employee of

Gwinnett County School Police,

Defendant-Appellee.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

D.C. Docket No. 1:23-cv-05072-MLB

____________________

Before JILL PRYOR, BRANCH, and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

USCA11 Case: 25-13391 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 03/02/2026 Page: 2 of 20

2 Opinion of the Court 25-13391

PER CURIAM:

David Warth, a former student at Brookwood High School

(“Brookwood”), sued Thomas Williamson, a school resource of-

ficer employed by the Gwinnett County Board of Education.

Warth argued that Williamson was liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

for, among other claims, false arrest and malicious prosecution. As

is relevant for this appeal, Warth asserted that Williamson violated

the Fourth Amendment by (1) arresting him for trespassing at

Brookwood while wearing a fake beard and sunglasses, and (2) sub-

mitting an affidavit of probable cause in support of an arrest war-

rant that alleged Warth had sent an email containing violent death

threats to his former teacher, Brittney Dewey.

The district court granted summary judgment to William-

son on both claims, concluding that Williamson was entitled to

qualified immunity. Warth appeals the district court’s grant of

summary judgment as to those two claims.

After review, 1 we affirm the district court.

I. BACKGROUND

We summarize the undisputed record evidence, viewing it

in the light most favorable to Warth as the non-movant. See Luke

1 We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing the

evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant. Butler v. Smith, 85

F.4th 1102, 1111 (11th Cir. 2023). We review a district court’s application of

its local rules for an abuse of discretion. Mann v. Taser Int’l, Inc., 588 F.3d 1291,

1302 (11th Cir. 2009).

USCA11 Case: 25-13391 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 03/02/2026 Page: 3 of 20

25-13391 Opinion of the Court 3

v. Gulley, 50 F.4th 90, 95 (11th Cir. 2022).

From approximately 2011 to 2015, Warth was a student at

Brookwood. During part of that time, he was placed in special ed-

ucation classes for students with autism spectrum disorder. Dewey

was one of his teachers for those classes. Warth felt frustration at

his placement in the special education classes, which was directed

at the school system in general and various individuals within the

school system, including Dewey. In particular, Warth was frus-

trated with Dewey based on her treatment of him in the special

education classes and her efforts to keep him in those classes when

he did not want to continue with them.

In 2015, after a meeting during which Warth unsuccessfully

attempted to resolve his issues with Dewey and other school offi-

cials, Dewey reported that Warth stared aggressively at her. Soon

after, the school received a warning from Warth’s therapist that he

had threatened to harm Dewey. 2 This series of events led Dewey

to apply for and successfully obtain a temporary protective order

(“TPO”) against Warth that lasted for a year. The school took ef-

forts to ensure that Warth was never present in the same location

as Dewey. Those efforts included transferring Warth to Gwinnett

Online Campus during his senior year.

2 Warth denies that he ever stared aggressively at or threatened to harm

Dewey. As the non-movant, we must accept Warth’s version of the facts as

true. See Luke, 50 F.4th at 95. However, even accepting Warth’s version of

the facts as true, it is undisputed that the school had received these reports.

USCA11 Case: 25-13391 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 03/02/2026 Page: 4 of 20

4 Opinion of the Court 25-13391

Later that year, Warth graduated from high school and be-

gan attending Emory University. Then, in 2016 Warth began con-

tacting a Brookwood employee in the hopes of obtaining certain

records relating to his placement in the special education classes.

Warth was told that Brookwood did not have the records he was

seeking.

Believing that the records he sought were being stored at

Brookwood despite what he had been told, Warth decided to go to

Brookwood’s campus to ask about the records in person. On Sep-

tember 6, 2016, Warth went to a CVS close to Brookwood. There,

he purchased neoprene gloves and a hat, which he put on at the

CVS, along with a fake beard, hairnet, glasses, and a Brookwood

shirt. 3 He then started walking towards Brookwood. Concerned

by his appearance and behavior, a CVS employee and a local resi-

dent called 911 to report Warth as suspicious.

When he arrived at Brookwood, Warth did not go to the

front entrance but instead went to the back of the school where the

sports facilities were located, as well as a trailer where Dewey

taught classes. 4 Warth was then approached by security officer

Mark Torres. Torres asked Warth who he was and what he was

3 Warth stated that he purchased the gloves to protect his hands from paper

cuts, and that he purchased the other items to protect his identity and to hide

his reason for coming to the school until he got there.

4 Warth stated that he went to the back of the school because he felt “internal

tension” at the idea of going to the front of the school. He stated that he then

became lost.

USCA11 Case: 25-13391 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 03/02/2026 Page: 5 of 20

25-13391 Opinion of the Court 5

doing there. Warth did not respond and instead left the area. A

different officer pursued Warth and stopped him in a nearby neigh-

borhood. At that point, Williamson arrived on the scene, followed

later by Gwinnett County police officers. Warth continued to re-

fuse to answer any questions or identify himself and instead called

his lawyers. Williamson could not identify Warth. After some

time, Williamson decided to arrest Warth on suspicion of criminal

trespass. It was only after arresting Warth and seeing his identifi-

cation that Williamson was able to identify Warth.

Warth was charged with stalking Dewey, criminal trespass,

and wearing a mask. Warth was released on bond for these

charges, which included as a condition that he have no contact with

Dewey.

As a result of the charges, Dewey obtained a new TPO

against Warth in January 2017. Shortly thereafter, on February 6,

2017, Dewey received an anonymous email with a threat to mur-

der her, her friends, and her family if she did not dismiss all pending

legal actions, without specifying any particular case. Dewey did

not have any legal cases pending other than the proceedings relat-

ing to Warth. The email also explained that Dewey was being

monitored and referred to a photo taken of her at a Walmart close

to her home, although the email did not attach any photo. The

email did not contain any identifying information and was sent

USCA11 Case: 25-13391 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 03/02/2026 Page: 6 of 20

6 Opinion of the Court 25-13391

from the following email address: “jacobportmeir@sigaint.org.” 5

Dewey showed the email to Williamson and told him that

she suspected that Warth had sent it.6 In collaboration with other

law enforcement and prosecutors, Williamson then began investi-

gating whether Warth had sent the email. Williamson suspected

Warth at that time because (1) Warth had a history with Dewey,

(2) the email was similar in style and tone to Warth’s social media

posts, and (3) nobody else had a motive to threaten Dewey.

Williamson obtained warrants to search Warth’s parents’

house and his dorm room at Emory University. During those

searches, Williamson and other officers were unable to recover

Warth’s personal laptop or phone and did not find any photos of

Dewey or other evidence directly proving that Warth had sent the

email. However, Williamson knew that the email had been sent

through a TOR 7 browser, which is often used by people to send

emails anonymously, and he recovered from Warth’s dorm room

an index card with the phrase, “How to download a TOR.” Wil-

liamson learned from Emory University’s IT department that

Warth had accessed a TOR browser on his personal computer

through the Emory network, although not on the day that the

email was sent. Williamson and the prosecutors suspected that

5 At around the same time, Warth received an anonymous email warning him

that he might be “falsely accused” of an unspecified action.

6 Warth denied sending the email.

7 “TOR” stands for “The Onion Router.”

USCA11 Case: 25-13391 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 03/02/2026 Page: 7 of 20

25-13391 Opinion of the Court 7

Warth had scheduled the email to be automatically sent out at a

time when he was not using his computer. Williamson also recov-

ered from Warth’s dorm room (1) a burner phone; (2) an empty

box for a different burner phone, which he stated could have been

used to send the anonymous email; and (3) an index card with a

written note about “punishment.”

After considering the evidence, Williamson and the prose-

cutors decided to pursue charges against Warth relating to the

email. In support of an arrest warrant, they drafted an affidavit of

probable cause. The affidavit stated that Warth had committed the

offense of aggravated stalking, in violation of O.C.G.A. § 16-5-91.

Specifically, the affidavit alleged that Warth “did follow, place un-

der surveillance, and contact” Dewey at Brookwood and the

Walmart close to her home. It added that Warth had threatened

to kill Dewey’s friends and family if she did not dismiss any pending

cases. The affidavit stated that Warth did this in violation of the

no-contact condition of his pretrial release.

The custom in Gwinnett County when seeking an arrest

warrant was to submit a “boilerplate-type” affidavit of probable

cause and then provide the full details of the investigation to a mag-

istrate judge via oral testimony. In this case, Williamson testified

before a magistrate judge about his investigation, explaining that

the charges were based on the email. During his testimony, Wil-

liamson described all of the evidence they had obtained, including

the full history between Warth and Dewey as well as the failure to

recover Warth’s personal computer and phone. On March 17,

USCA11 Case: 25-13391 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 03/02/2026 Page: 8 of 20

8 Opinion of the Court 25-13391

2017, after hearing Williamson’s oral testimony, the magistrate

judge determined that probable cause existed for the new charges

and issued the requested arrest warrant. On June 14, 2017, Warth

was indicted on two counts of aggravated stalking and one count

of influencing a witness.

Ultimately, in November 2021, the prosecutors concluded

that the evidence they had gathered was insufficient to meet their

burden of proof at trial. For that reason, they moved to dismiss all

pending charges against Warth, which the state court judge

granted.

In October 2023, Warth filed a complaint in Georgia state

court against (1) Gwinnett County Public Schools, (2) Gwinnett

County School Police, (3) Williamson, and (4) Dewey. Warth as-

serted both federal § 1983 claims and state-law claims against all

defendants. As is relevant for this appeal, Warth alleged that Wil-

liamson was liable for claims of (1) § 1983 false arrest for the Sep-

tember 6, 2016, arrest (“Count 1”), and (2) § 1983 malicious prose-

cution for his actions relating to the March 17, 2017, arrest warrant

(“Count 7”). Gwinnett County Public Schools removed the case

to federal court based on federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C.

§ 1331.

The defendants moved to dismiss all claims for failure to

state a claim. On September 26, 2024, the district court dismissed

all of Warth’s claims except for Counts 1 and 7 as well as four other

state-law claims against Williamson.

USCA11 Case: 25-13391 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 03/02/2026 Page: 9 of 20

25-13391 Opinion of the Court 9

Williamson then moved for summary judgment as to the re-

maining claims against him. He argued that he was entitled to

qualified immunity as to the two remaining federal claims.

On August 26, 2025, the district court granted summary

judgment to Williamson as to the two federal claims and remanded

the remaining state-law claims to state court. As to Count 1, the

district court concluded that Williamson was entitled to qualified

immunity because he had both actual and arguable probable cause

to arrest Warth on September 6, 2016. As to Count 7, the district

court concluded that Williamson was entitled to qualified immun-

ity because he did not intentionally or recklessly omit facts that

would defeat probable cause in his oral testimony to the magistrate

judge in support of the March 17, 2017, arrest warrant. Lastly, the

district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over

the remaining state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) and thus

remanded those claims to state court.

Warth timely appealed.

II. DISCUSSION

Warth argues that the district court erred by granting sum-

mary judgment to Williamson as to his § 1983 claims based on its

conclusion that Williamson was entitled to qualified immunity.8

State and local government officials are entitled to qualified

immunity from civil liability based on actions performed within

8 Warth does not challenge the dismissal of his claims in the September 26,

2024, order or the remand of his state-law claims in the August 26, 2025, order.

USCA11 Case: 25-13391 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 03/02/2026 Page: 10 of 20

10 Opinion of the Court 25-13391

their discretionary authority “if their conduct does not violate

clearly established constitutional or statutory rights of which a rea-

sonable person would have known.” Aguirre v. Seminole Cnty., 158

F.4th 1276, 1296 (11th Cir. 2025). It is undisputed that Williamson

was a government official acting within the scope of his discretion-

ary authority at all relevant times, so to establish that Williamson

was not entitled to qualified immunity, Warth needed to establish

that (1) Williamson violated a constitutional right, and (2) the right

was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. Id.

Warth specifically argues that (1) Williamson lacked proba-

ble cause to arrest Warth or bring any criminal charges against him,

and (2) the district court erred by granting summary judgment to

Williamson simply because Warth’s response to Williamson’s

statement of material facts did not cite to record evidence as re-

quired by N.D. Ga. Local Rule 56.1(B)(2). We address each argu-

ment in turn.

A. False Arrest

In his appellate brief, Warth does not appear to substantively

challenge the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Wil-

liamson as to his federal false-arrest claim relating to the September

6, 2016, arrest. Warth discusses the arrest only in passing and does

not address the substance of the district court’s legal conclusion.

Therefore, Warth has arguably abandoned any argument as to this

issue. See Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 681

(11th Cir. 2014) (“We have long held that an appellant abandons a

claim when he either makes only passing references to it or raises

USCA11 Case: 25-13391 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 03/02/2026 Page: 11 of 20

25-13391 Opinion of the Court 11

it in a perfunctory manner without supporting arguments and au-

thority.”). Nevertheless, even if Warth did not abandon any argu-

ment as to this issue, we would still affirm the district court on this

ground.

A law enforcement officer violates the Fourth Amendment

if he arrests a person without a warrant or probable cause. Brown

v. City of Huntsville, 608 F.3d 724, 734 (11th Cir. 2010). “Probable

cause exists where the facts within the collective knowledge of law

enforcement officials, derived from reasonably trustworthy infor-

mation, are sufficient to cause a person of reasonable caution to

believe that a criminal offense has been or is being committed.” Id.

In this case, Williamson was entitled to qualified immunity

as to the false-arrest claim because the undisputed facts show that

he had probable cause to arrest Warth on September 6, 2016.

See id. at 735 (“If the arresting officer had arguable probable cause

to arrest for any offense, qualified immunity will apply.”). Specifi-

cally, Williamson had probable cause to arrest Warth for criminal

trespass. See O.C.G.A. § 16-7-21(b)(1) (“A person commits the of-

fense of criminal trespass when he or she knowingly and without

authority . . . [e]nters upon the land or premises of another person

. . . for an unlawful purpose.”); Daniel v. State, 201 S.E.2d 393, 393-

94 (Ga. 1973) (affirming conviction for criminal trespass where the

defendants trespassed on public school property).

The undisputed record evidence establishes that on Septem-

ber 6, 2016, Warth (1) entered Brookwood wearing an obvious dis-

guise, (2) went to the back of the school instead of the front office,

USCA11 Case: 25-13391 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 03/02/2026 Page: 12 of 20

12 Opinion of the Court 25-13391

(3) refused to explain who he was or why he was there when con-

fronted, and (4) fled the premises and continued refusing to answer

any questions when again confronted. Based on these facts, an ob-

jectively reasonable officer in Williamson’s position could con-

clude that Warth had entered Brookwood’s campus without per-

mission for the purpose of committing a crime. See Daniel v. State,

804 S.E.2d 61, 65 (Ga. 2017) (“In the context of criminal trespass,

this Court has interpreted an unlawful purpose to be a purpose to

violate a criminal law.” (quotation marks omitted)). Although

Warth stated that he went to Brookwood to obtain records rather

than to commit a crime, he did not inform any of the officers of this

purpose, and so it would be reasonable for an officer in William-

son’s position to conclude that Warth was instead there for some

criminal purpose in light of all of the highly suspicious surrounding

circumstances.

Moreover, Warth has not shown that Williamson lacked

“arguable probable cause” to arrest him on September 6, 2016. See

Garcia v. Casey, 75 F.4th 1176, 1186 (11th Cir. 2023) (“[T]o establish

the defense of qualified immunity for a false arrest claim, we have

held that an officer need not have actual probable cause, but only

arguable probable cause.” (quotation marks omitted)). “An officer

lacks arguable probable cause only if the state of the law on the

date of the alleged misconduct makes it obvious that the officer’s

acts violated the plaintiff’s rights in the specific set of circumstances

at issue.” Id. (quotation marks omitted and alteration adopted).

Warth has not cited to any legal authority establishing that it was

USCA11 Case: 25-13391 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 03/02/2026 Page: 13 of 20

25-13391 Opinion of the Court 13

obvious that Williamson violated his constitutional rights by arrest-

ing him based on the objectively reasonable conclusion that he had

committed the offense of criminal trespass, and our independent

research has revealed no such authority.

For those reasons, the district court did not err by granting

summary judgment to Williamson as to the false-arrest claim.

B. Malicious Prosecution

Warth’s primary argument on appeal is that Williamson vi-

olated the Fourth Amendment in his application for the March 17,

2017, arrest warrant because he knew that he did not have any ev-

idence that Warth (1) had followed, placed under surveillance, or

contacted Dewey at Brookwood or at the Walmart close to her

home, or (2) had sent the anonymous email to Dewey. Warth as-

serts that Williamson omitted and misstated material evidence in

the affidavit of probable cause by failing to convey this lack of evi-

dence.

To succeed in a § 1983 claim for malicious prosecution, a

plaintiff must prove “(1) that the defendant violated his Fourth

Amendment right to be free from seizures pursuant to legal process

and (2) that the criminal proceedings against him terminated in his

favor.” Luke, 50 F.4th at 95 (quotation marks omitted). “The first

element requires proof that the legal process justifying [the plain-

tiff’s] seizure was constitutionally infirm and that [the plaintiff’s]

seizure would not otherwise be justified without legal process.” Id.

(quotation marks omitted).

An affidavit of probable cause supporting an arrest warrant

USCA11 Case: 25-13391 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 03/02/2026 Page: 14 of 20

14 Opinion of the Court 25-13391

“may be constitutionally defective when an officer has intention-

ally or recklessly made misstatements or omissions necessary to

support the probable-cause finding.” Aguirre, 158 F.4th at 1301. To

determine whether an affidavit of probable cause was constitution-

ally defective in this way, we first assess “whether there were any

intentional or reckless misstatements or omissions,” and then “ask

whether probable cause would be negated if such statements were

removed or omissions included.” Id. Specifically, we must analyze

whether the affidavit of probable cause established arguable prob-

able cause, considering “whether a reasonable officer in the same

circumstances and possessing the same knowledge as the Defend-

ant could have believed that probable cause existed.” Butler v.

Smith, 85 F.4th 1102, 1116 (11th Cir. 2023) (quotation marks omit-

ted and alterations adopted). In doing so, we must analyze

whether the affidavit established arguable probable cause as to the

charged crime in particular. Id.

The affidavit of probable cause supporting the March 17,

2017, arrest warrant is scant of information. It alleged that Warth

had committed the offense of aggravated stalking by following,

placing under surveillance, and contacting Dewey at Brookwood

and at a Walmart close to her home, more specifically by threaten-

ing to kill her family and friends, in violation of a condition of pre-

trial release. See O.C.G.A. § 16-5-91(a) (“A person commits the of-

fense of aggravated stalking when such person, in violation of a

. . . condition of pretrial release, . . . follows, places under surveil-

lance, or contacts another person at or about a place or places with-

out the consent of the other person for the purpose of harassing

USCA11 Case: 25-13391 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 03/02/2026 Page: 15 of 20

25-13391 Opinion of the Court 15

and intimidating the other person.”). The affidavit did not specifi-

cally refer to the threatening email that was the basis for the charge

or to any of the evidence that supported the conclusion that Warth

had sent the email.

While the written affidavit on its own lacked many im-

portant details supporting the aggravated-stalking allegation, the

record undisputedly establishes that Williamson orally testified be-

fore the magistrate judge who issued the March 17, 2017, arrest

warrant, about the evidence supporting the conclusion that Warth

had sent the email. Significantly, Williamson described to the mag-

istrate judge (1) the circumstantial evidence supporting the conclu-

sion that Warth had sent the email; (2) the lack of direct evidence

supporting that conclusion, including law enforcement’s failure to

recover Warth’s personal computer and phone; and (3) the full his-

tory between Warth and Dewey. In his testimony, Williamson did

not omit or misstate any facts to make the case seem stronger than

it actually was.

When deciding whether an arrest warrant was constitution-

ally defective, we assess “whether the judicial officer who made the

probable-cause determination had sufficient, truthful information

to establish probable cause.” Williams v. Aguirre, 965 F.3d 1147,

1163 (11th Cir. 2020). This includes oral testimony presented to a

magistrate judge that supplements a written affidavit of probable

cause. See Garmon v. Lumpkin Cnty., 878 F.2d 1406, 1409 n.1 (11th

Cir. 1989) (explaining that an affidavit of probable cause can be sup-

ported by oral testimony); Butler, 85 F.4th at 1113-14 (considering

USCA11 Case: 25-13391 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 03/02/2026 Page: 16 of 20

16 Opinion of the Court 25-13391

an officer’s oral statement in addition to written affidavits pre-

sented to a magistrate judge in analyzing a malicious-prosecution

claim); cf. Land v. Sheriff of Jackson Cnty., 85 F.4th 1121, 1127 (11th

Cir. 2023) (“We do not consider the subjective knowledge of the

arresting officer, later amendments not presented to a magistrate

judge, or any evidence not incorporated into the operative affida-

vit.”). Therefore, given that Williamson provided the magistrate

judge with all of the relevant information regarding the email via

oral testimony, including the lack of direct evidence connecting

Warth to the email, we cannot say that Williamson misstated or

omitted any material evidence in his application for the March 17,

2017, arrest warrant. 9

Further, considering all of the evidence that Williamson ac-

quired through the investigation and presented to the magistrate

judge, there was at least arguable probable cause to arrest and

9 Warth argues that the district court should not have considered Williamson’s

oral testimony because he only discussed it in deposition testimony and a writ-

ten affidavit and did not present “verifiable evidence” of that testimony, such

as transcripts. For that reason, Warth contends that Williamson’s oral testi-

mony is disputed. However, Warth does not point to any record evidence to

establish that it actually was disputed that Williamson orally testified before

the magistrate judge about all of the evidence, both good and bad, relating to

the investigation. See Allen v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 121 F.3d 642, 646 (11th Cir.

1997) (“Once the movant . . . satisfies its initial burden under [Fed. R. Civ. P.]

56(a) of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, the bur-

den shifts to the nonmovant to come forward with specific facts showing that

there is a genuine issue for trial.” (quotation marks omitted)). In fact, Warth

himself acknowledged during his deposition that Williamson orally testified in

support of the arrest warrant.

USCA11 Case: 25-13391 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 03/02/2026 Page: 17 of 20

25-13391 Opinion of the Court 17

charge Warth with aggravated stalking. An objectively reasonable

officer in Williamson’s position could have concluded that Warth

committed the offense of aggravated stalking against Dewey spe-

cifically by threatening to kill her, her friends, and her family via

the anonymous email in violation of the no-contact provision of his

pretrial release. See O.C.G.A. § 16-5-91(a). The evidence support-

ing that conclusion included (1) Warth’s history of conflict with

Dewey while he attended Brookwood; (2) the 2015 warning from

Warth’s therapist that Warth had threatened to harm Dewey;

(3) the September 6, 2016, incident where Warth was found tres-

passing on Brookwood’s campus close to the trailer where Dewey

taught; (4) the fact that the email instructed Dewey to dismiss all

of her pending legal actions, while the only legal actions that she

was involved in at that time related to Warth; and (5) the fact that

Warth researched how to use and accessed a TOR browser, which

was used to anonymously send the email to Dewey, even though

he did not access such a browser on the day the email was sent.

Although a reasonable officer in Williamson’s position could

have concluded that the lack of direct evidence connecting Warth

to the email indicated that he did not send it, a reasonable officer

in Williamson’s position could have believed based on the above

evidence that there was probable cause to arrest Warth for aggra-

vated stalking. See Washington v. Howard, 25 F.4th 891, 902 (11th

Cir. 2022) (“[A] police officer need not resolve conflicting evidence

in a manner favorable to the suspect.”). Therefore, the district

court did not err by granting summary judgment to Williamson as

USCA11 Case: 25-13391 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 03/02/2026 Page: 18 of 20

18 Opinion of the Court 25-13391

to the malicious-prosecution claim.10 See Aguirre, 158 F.4th at 1301;

Butler, 85 F.4th at 1116.

C. Local Rule 56.1

Lastly, Warth argues that the district court erred by auto-

matically granting summary judgment to Williamson based on its

application of N.D. Ga. Local Rule 56.1.

Local Rule 56.1 requires that a respondent to a summary

judgment motion include with his responsive brief a response to

the movant’s statement of undisputed facts. N.D. Ga. Local Rule

56.1(B)(2)(a). The Rule adds, “This Court will deem each of the

movant’s facts as admitted unless the respondent,” among other

things, “directly refutes the movant’s fact with concise responses

supported by specific citations to evidence (including page or para-

graph number).” Id. R. 56.1(B)(2)(a)(2). In other words, when a

respondent fails to comply with this Rule, the district court can

“disregard or ignore evidence relied on by the respondent—but not

cited in its response to the movant’s statement of undisputed

10 Warth makes much of the fact that, although the affidavit of probable cause

alleged that he contacted and surveilled Dewey at Brookwood and a Walmart

close to her home, there was no evidence that Dewey was present at the

Walmart at the relevant time or that he himself was present at either

Brookwood or the Walmart at the relevant time. Although the affidavit does

imply that Warth physically stalked Dewey at those locations, that potential

implication is immaterial because Williamson orally testified before the mag-

istrate judge that the primary basis for probable cause was the threatening

email, and there was arguable probable cause to conclude that Warth had sent

the email in violation of the non-contact condition of his pretrial release and

thus committed the offense of aggravated stalking.

USCA11 Case: 25-13391 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 03/02/2026 Page: 19 of 20

25-13391 Opinion of the Court 19

facts—that yields facts contrary to those listed in the movant’s

statement.” Reese v. Herbert, 527 F.3d 1253, 1268 (11th Cir. 2008).

Thus, a non-movant’s failure to comply with this requirement

means that “the court has before it the functional analog of an un-

opposed motion for summary judgment.” Id.

Application of this Rule “does not, however, automatically

entitle the movant to summary judgment. This is so because under

[Fed. R. Civ. P.] 56, the moving party always bears the initial re-

sponsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its mo-

tion, and identifying those portions of the pleadings, depositions,

answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with

the affidavits, if any, which it believes demonstrates the absence of

a genuine issue of material fact.” Id. (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,

477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986)). “The movant therefore continues to

shoulder the initial burden of production in demonstrating the ab-

sence of any genuine issue of material fact, and the court must sat-

isfy itself that the burden has been satisfactorily discharged.” Id.

In this case, the district court concluded that Warth’s re-

sponse to Williamson’s statement of undisputed facts did not com-

ply with Local Rule 56.1(B)(2)(a)(2) because it did not cite to the

record in support of its assertions. For that reason, the court ig-

nored Warth’s response and based its summary of the facts on Wil-

liamson’s statement of undisputed material facts.

Contrary to Warth’s argument, the district court did not au-

tomatically grant summary judgment to Williamson solely based

on Warth’s failure to comply with Local Rule 56.1. Rather, it did

USCA11 Case: 25-13391 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 03/02/2026 Page: 20 of 20

20 Opinion of the Court 25-13391

exactly what we said it could do in Reese: It disregarded Warth’s

response to Williamson’s statement of undisputed material facts

and then reviewed whether Williamson had met his burden under

the summary-judgment standard. See id. Accordingly, the district

court did not abuse its discretion in applying Local Rule 56.1.

III. CONCLUSION

The district court did not err by granting summary judg-

ment to Williamson as to Warth’s federal claims for false arrest and

malicious prosecution. The district court also did not abuse its dis-

cretion in its application of N.D. Ga. Local Rule 56.1.

AFFIRMED.