# Demetrius Gatling v. Shane Roland

> Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · February 14, 2012 · 458 F. App'x 819

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/624211

## Case

- **Full name:** Demetrius GATLING, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Shane ROLAND, Jessie Mincey, Defendants-Appellants, Richard Marshall Boan, Defendant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
- **Decided:** February 14, 2012
- **Citations:** 458 F. App'x 819
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Tjoflat, Carnes, Wilson
- **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/624211

## Opinion text

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
FEB 14, 2012
No. 11-13704 JOHN LEY
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK

D. C. Docket No. 5:10-cv-00055-CAR

DEMETRIUS GATLING,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

SHANE ROLAND,
JESSIE MINCEY,

Defendants-Appellants,

RICHARD MARSHALL BOAN,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia

(February 14, 2012)

Before TJOFLAT, CARNES and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

In this civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff Gatling

claimed that appellants Roland and Mincey, officers of the Middle College of

Georgia Police Department, searched his person and took him into custody

without arguable probable cause in violation of his rights under the Fourth

Amendment.1 Following discovery, Roland and Mincey moved the district court

for summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity. The court denied

their motion, concluding that the evidence, considered in the light most favorable

to Gatling, established that the conduct Roland and Mincey engaged in violated

clearly established Fourth Amendment rights of which a reasonable person would

have known. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738, 73

L.Ed.2d 396 (1982).

Roland and Mincey now appeal the district court’s qualified immunity

ruling. We affirm. The court correctly held that the evidence considered in the

light most favorable to Gatling2 demonstrated that Roland and Mincey’s conduct

violated clearly established Fourth Amendment rights.

1
The Fourth Amendment is applicable to the States under the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment. See Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684 (1961).

2
In considering the evidence in the light most favorable to Gatling, the district court
properly eliminated, for summary judgment purposes, all factual disputes.

2
AFFIRMED.

3

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/624211. Public record. Not legal advice.