The opinion
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
September 13, 2005
No. 04-16212 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 03-62291-CV-JEM
ERIC GOLDSTEIN,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CITY OF SUNRISE, a municipal corporation,
ROBERT STEIN, Captain, individually,
DAVID BOYETT, Chief, individually,
Defendants,
JAMES SKELLION, Lt., individually,
Defendant-Counter-
Claimant-Appellant,
versus
F. SCOTT FISTEL,
Third-Party-Defendant-
Counter-Defendant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(September 13, 2005)
Before ANDERSON, DUBINA and CARNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This is Lt. James Skellion’s appeal from the district court’s omnibus order
holding that he is not entitled to qualified immunity and, consistent with that
holding, denying Skellion’s motion to dismiss and his motion for summary
judgment. Skellion’s only argument on appeal is that a Title VII violation cannot
provide the sole basis for the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim that Eric Goldstein asserts
against him in count III in his amended complaint. See Arrington v. Cobb County,
139 F.3d 865, 872 (11th Cir. 1998) (“Of course, an allegation of a Title VII
violation cannot provide the sole basis for a § 1983 claim. [A] plaintiff cannot
bootstrap an untimely Title VII claim by bringing a § 1983 action based only on a
statutory violation of Title VII.”) (internal citations omitted). Skellion misreads
the amended complaint. Count III of the amended complaint alleges that Skellion,
among others, “clearly violated established statutory or constitutional rights”
(emphasis added) of Goldstein. Accordingly, the premise of Skellion’s appeal is
mistaken.
2
AFFIRMED.
3