not selected for publication in the Federal Reporter
How later courts described this case
- not selected for publication in the Federal Reporter
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 07-12914 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JANUARY 8, 2008
Non-Argument Calendar
THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 05-00563-CV-KD
RICKY STEPHENS,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
HENRY LOVETTE,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Alabama
_________________________
(January 8, 2008)
Before BIRCH, DUBINA and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Henry Lovette appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for summary
judgment in Ricky Stephens’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 excessive force action against him.
Lovette asserts the district court erred in concluding he was not entitled to
qualified immunity. He specifically asserts the district court erred in concluding
that his conduct violated clearly established law under the Fourth Amendment
standard governing the treatment of arrestees. He contends the district court
should have analyzed his qualified immunity argument under the Fourteenth
Amendment, which governs the treatment of pretrial detainees. Alternatively, he
argues that even if his case is analyzed under the more stringent Fourth
Amendment standard, he is entitled to qualified immunity.
After a thorough analysis, the district court concluded Stephens’ excessive
force claim should be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment, and concluded that
Lovette was not entitled to qualified immunity. We have reviewed the record and
the parties’ briefs, and conclude the district court did not err in applying the
Fourth Amendment to Stephens’ excessive force claim and denying qualified
immunity to Lovette. Thus, we affirm.1
1
Lovette summarily argues the district court erred in denying discretionary function
immunity and peace officer immunity to him. We affirm the district court in the denial of
discretionary function immunity and peace officer immunity for the reasons stated in its order of
June 23, 2007.
2
AFFIRMED.
3