“We repeatedly have held that there is no requirement that the precise right allegedly violated already have been recognized specifically by a court before such right may be held ‘clearly established’ for qualified immunity purposes.”
How later courts described this case
- “We repeatedly have held that there is no requirement that the precise right allegedly violated already have been recognized specifically by a court before such right may be held ‘clearly established’ for qualified immunity purposes.”
- “‘An actor is subject to liability to another for assault if (a) he acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person of the other or a third person, or an imminent apprehension of such a contact, and (b) the other is thereby put in such imminent apprehension.’ Restatement (Second) of Torts § 21 (1965), cited with approval in W. Va. Fire & Cas. Co. v. Stanley, 216 W. Va. 40 , 602 S.E.2d 483, 495 (2004).”
- collecting and discussing authority regarding same
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
John Franklin appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 , 91 S.Ct. 1999 , 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. Franklin v. Johns, No. 5:09-cb-03023-D (E.D.N.C. Jan. 18, 2011). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.