Doris Archer v. Myron Logan, et al

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Doris Archer. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam.

Case: 14-15401

Date Filed: 04/06/2015

Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-15401
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cv-03439-TWT
DORIS ARCHER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CAPTAIN MYRON LOGAN,
MAJOR R. K. ELLISON,
LIEUTENANT A. B. CATLIN,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(April 6, 2015)

Case: 14-15401

Date Filed: 04/06/2015

Page: 2 of 3

Before HULL, MARCUS and WILLIAM PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, plaintiff Doris Archer appeals, through
counsel, the district court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of defendant
Captain Myron Logan, of the DeKalb County Police Department, and defendant
Major Robert Ellison, Logan’s supervisor. In her complaint, Archer alleged that
the defendants caused her arrest in violation of the First and Fourth Amendments
and also asserted false arrest and malicious prosecution claims based on state law.
Having reviewed the record and considered the arguments of the parties in their
briefs, we AFFIRM the grant of summary judgment for the reasons stated in the
district court’s thorough and well-reasoned order entered November 4, 2014.
We also point out that the district court correctly rejected plaintiff Archer’s
argument that defendant Captain Logan was acting “under color of state law”
simply because his position in the Police Department may have gained him some
preferential treatment by the District Attorney’s Office investigator or allowed him
a measure of influence in the initiation of a criminal prosecution. We agree with
the district court that Archer has cited no authority indicating that a state official
acting purely in his private capacity acts under color of state law simply “because
he may have gained an indirect advantage by virtue of his official post.” We add
that our precedent supports the district court’s rejection of that argument on this
2

Case: 14-15401

Date Filed: 04/06/2015

Page: 3 of 3

record. See Myers v. Bowman, 713 F.3d 1319, 1331 (11th Cir. 2013) (defendant
magistrate judge did not act under color of state law even though his “position as a
magistrate judge affected [police officer’s] decision to pursue the [plaintiffs],” and
he instructed another officer during the arrest, because arrest was not “made
possible only because [defendant] was clothed with the authority of state law”
(alteration adopted and quotation omitted)).
We additionally address, and find unpersuasive, plaintiff Archer’s
contention that the district court—in finding no supervisory liability as to
defendant Major Ellison—erred in failing to address her claim that Ellison directly
participated in the alleged First and Fourth Amendment violations. Archer has
pointed to no evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether
Ellison personally participated in the investigation that culminated in her
indictment and arrest. See Mann v. Taser Int’l, Inc., 588 F.3d 1291, 1308 (11th
Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

3