Ricky Sampson v. Kasim Reed, et al


Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Robert C. Godwin. Decision: Affirmed and Remanded. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam.

Download PDF
Case: 13-11962 Date Filed: 10/02/2013 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 13-11962 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ District No. 1:12-cv-00500-TWT RICKY J. SAMPSON, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus KASIM REED, in his official capacity as Mayor of the City of Atlanta, et al., Defendants, ROBERT C. GODWIN, individually, REGINALD PETTIS, individually, Defendants-Appellants. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ________________________ (October 2, 2013) Before WILSON, HILL, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. Case: 13-11962 Date Filed: 10/02/2013 Page: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Robert Godwin and Reginald Pettis appeal the denial of their motions for summary judgment in this Section 1983 action against them by plaintiff, Ricky Sampson. The district court, in a well-reasoned and thorough opinion, denied summary judgment as to the officers’ affirmative defenses of qualified immunity and official immunity. The district court also found that Sampson had presented sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact as to his claims of false imprisonment and abuse in being arrested. Finally, the district court held that there was sufficient evidence to support Sampson’s battery claim against Officer Pettis, but not against Officer Godwin, whom the undisputed evidence showed did not touch Sampson. Sampson does not appeal the grant of summary judgment to Officer Godwin on this claim. We have reviewed the record in this case and the district court’s thoughtful opinion. Finding no reversible error, we shall affirm. AFFIRMED and REMANDED for further proceedings. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?