Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 14-1918
No. 14-2208
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of South Carolina, at Rock Hill.
Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (0:11-cv-02395-JFA)
Submitted:
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
These
consolidated
appeals
are
cross-appeals
from
the
him,
in
violation
appeal,
Defendants
of
contend
42
that
U.S.C.
the
1983
district
(2012).
court
On
erred
in
excessive
contends
that
the
judgment
against
force
claim.
district
his
In
court
false
his
cross-appeal,
erroneously
arrest
claim
granted
because
Smith
summary
Defendants
an
appeal
from
an
order
that
involves
controlling
of
opinion
and
from
which
immediate
appeal
Id.
may
This
Id.
discretion,
applies
certified
this
to
courts
the
court
jurisdiction
of
appeals,
and
In exercising its
is
to
not
the
tied
order
to
the
Yamaha
this
case,
at
Smiths
request,
the
district
court
1292(b).
This
permission
to
cross-appeals,
court
granted
appeal.
we
have
Smiths
timely
request
in
these
consolidated
over
any
Therefore,
jurisdiction
issue
for
fairly
U.S. at 205.
Turning to the merits, we review the grant or denial of
summary
judgment
de
novo.
Cloaninger ex
rel.
Estate
of
All
Summary judgment is
allegations
evidence
in
do
not
suffice,
support
of
nor
[the
Conclusory or speculative
does
non-moving
mere
scintilla
partys]
of
case.
Thompson v. Potomac Elec. Power Co., 312 F.3d 645, 649 (4th Cir.
2002) (internal quotation marks omitted).
First,
we
consider
Defendants
claim
that
the
district
claim
immunity.
because
Defendants
Initially,
were
Defendants
entitled
claim
to
that
qualified
no
clearly
established
at
the
time
of
the
challenged
conduct.
Determining
was
Id. at 200.
clearly
established
at
the
time
of
the
alleged
case
at
hand.
Pearson
v.
(2009).
5
Callahan,
555
U.S.
223,
236
right
is
clearly
established
only
if
reasonable
omitted).
existing
precedent
must
have
placed
the
statutory
or
Ashcroft v. al-Kidd,
unreasonable
seizures
bars
police
officers
officer
would
have
from
using
Jones v. Buchanan,
determined
that
the
degree
of
requir[ing]
circumstances
in
careful
each
attention
particular
to
case,
the
facts
including
and
the
this
the
case,
facts
the
in
the
district
light
court
most
properly
favorable
to
held
that,
Smith,
an
(2014)
another person).
(requiring
only
attempt
to
injure
could
characterized
be
concluded
resistance.
that
such
as
instinctive,
reactions
do
and
not
we
have
twice
constitute
active
See Smith v. Ray, 781 F.3d 95, 103 (4th Cir. 2015)
Prior to
Hill
v.
Crum,
727
F.3d
312,
318
(4th
Cir.
2013)
Orem v.
Rephann,
523
F.3d
442,
447-48
(4th
Cir.
2008),
abrogated
by
one
consideration
excessive.
th[e]
in
determining
established
reasonableness
fourth
when
dealing
amendment
with
whether
force
was
Faithful adherence to
standard
claims
of
of
objective
excessive
force
Martin v.
Gentile, 849 F.2d 863, 869 (4th Cir. 1988) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
rather
than
the
Fourth
Amendment.
And
Carter
v.
Morris, 164 F.3d 215, 219 n.3 (4th Cir. 1999), the free citizen
case,
does
not
demonstrate
that
the
de
minimis
injury
rule
in
passing,
that
the
plaintiffs
claim
no
de
support
minimis
for
Defendants
injuries
bars
failed
she
contention
one
because
from
that
suffering
asserting
Fourth
appropriately
denied
Defendants
motion
for
summary
only
be
enough
reasonable
officer
that
an
committed;
evidence
sufficient
to
warrant
offense
to
has
convict
the
been
is
belief
of
or
being
not
is
required.
Durham v. Horner, 690 F.3d 183, 190 (4th Cir. 2012) (internal
quotation marks and alteration omitted).
While
words
alone
do
not
constitute
an
Even viewing
the facts in the light most favorable to Smith, we find that the
district court correctly held that Defendants had probable cause
to arrest Smith for misdemeanor assault.
that
the
district
court
did
not
err
Therefore, we conclude
in
granting
Defendants
courts
order.
with
contentions
are
we
oral
affirm
the
argument
adequately
district
because
presented
in
the
the
facts
We
and
legal
materials
before
this court and judgment would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
10