# Ricky Stephens v. Town of Butler Alabama

> Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · January 8, 2008 · 261 F. App'x 240

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/58779

## Case

- **Full name:** Ricky STEPHENS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Henry LOVETTE, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
- **Decided:** January 8, 2008
- **Citations:** 261 F. App'x 240
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Birch, Dubina, Black
- **Cited by:** 1 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/58779

## Opinion text

[DO NOT PUBLISH]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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/58779. Public record. Not legal advice.