Ricky Sampson v. Kasim Reed, et al
Filing
Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Robert C. Godwin. Decision: Affirmed and Remanded. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam.
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[DO NOT PUBLISH]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?