Kerron Brown, et al v. Sirchie Acquisition Company, et al

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellants Kerron Brown and Justin Mallory. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. Motion filed by Appellee Sirchie Acquisition Company, LLC is GRANTED. See 07/25/2017 opinion) (CRW/AJ/RSR) [8177522-2]. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 17-11258

Date Filed: 07/25/2017

Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 17-11258
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:16-cv-00175-SCJ
KERRON BROWN,
JUSTIN MALLORY,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
SIRCHIE ACQUISITION COMPANY, LLC,
CITY OF ATLANTA,
CITY OF DOUGLASVILLE, GA,
MICHAEL WISKEMANN,
ARTHUR FERNKORN,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(July 25, 2017)

Case: 17-11258

Date Filed: 07/25/2017

Page: 2 of 3

Before WILSON, JORDAN, and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Sirchie Acquisition Company sells drug-testing kits to the Atlanta Police
Department and the Douglasville Police Department. During a traffic stop, Atlanta
police used one of the kits to test baking ingredients found in Justin Mallory’s car
for drugs. The kit generated positive results, but later, after Mallory spent weeks in
jail, forensic lab tests showed that the kit results were wrong. Similarly, the
Douglasville police used one of the kits to test vitamins found in Kerron Brown’s
backpack for drugs, the kit generated positive results, and after Brown spent weeks
in jail, forensic lab tests showed that the kit results were wrong.
Following their releases from jail, Mallory and Brown filed a complaint
against Sirchie, the City of Atlanta, the City of Douglasville, and the police
officers involved in Mallory’s arrest—Michael Wiskemann and Arthur Fernkorn.
Mallory and Brown raised a variety of claims under Georgia state law and 42
U.S.C. § 1983. They alleged products-liability claims against Sirchie; negligence,
vicarious liability, and failure-to-train-and-supervise claims against Atlanta,
Wiskemann, and Fernkorn; and § 1983 Monell 1 claims against Atlanta and
Douglasville. The district court dismissed all the claims on the pleadings. Mallory
and Brown now appeal the dismissal.

1

Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 98 S. Ct. 2018 (1978).
2

Case: 17-11258

Date Filed: 07/25/2017

Page: 3 of 3

Mallory and Brown argue that the district court erred in (1) determining that
Wiskemann’s and Fernkorn’s actions, as pleaded, were discretionary in nature, (2)
finding that their complaint does not set forth sufficient allegations to support a
plausible § 1983 Monell claim, and (3) denying their motion to amend. 2 After
careful consideration of these arguments, we find no reversible error. Therefore,
we affirm.
AFFIRMED.

2

Mallory and Brown initially raised additional arguments challenging the dismissal of
their claims against Sirchie. But Mallory, Brown, and Sirchie since filed a joint motion
requesting dismissal of Mallory and Brown’s appeal as to Sirchie. We GRANT Mallory,
Brown, and Sirchie’s joint motion to dismiss.
3