# Malissa L. Brown v. Bill Smith

> Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · April 14, 2009

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3063565

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
- **Decided:** April 14, 2009
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Nature of suit:** NEW
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3063565

## Opinion text

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 08-15936 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
APRIL 14, 2009
Non-Argument Calendar
THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________
CLERK

D. C. Docket No. 07-00069-CV-2

MALISSA L. BROWN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CHARLES BYERLY,
Individually and in his Official Capacity as
Deputy Sheriff for Camden County, Georgia,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
_________________________

(April 14, 2009)

Before DUBINA, BLACK and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
Charles Byerly appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss

based on the defense of qualified immunity. On appeal, Byerly argues the district

court should have granted his motion for the following reasons: (1) he was acting

within the scope of his discretionary authority, (2) the complaint does not establish

a constitutional violation because Appellee Malissa Brown was arrested pursuant

to a valid warrant, and (3) he did not violate a clearly established law. After de

novo review, we conclude the district court did not err in denying Byerly’s motion

to dismiss based on the defense of qualified immunity.

AFFIRMED.

2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3063565. Public record. Not legal advice.