Demetrius Gatling v. Shane Roland, et al., No. 11-13704 (11th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FEB 14, 2012 JOHN LEY CLERK No. 11-13704 Non-Argument Calendar D. C. Docket No. 5:10-cv-00055-CAR DEMETRIUS GATLING, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus SHANE ROLAND, JESSIE MINCEY, Defendants-Appellants, RICHARD MARSHALL BOAN, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia (February 14, 2012) Before TJOFLAT, CARNES and WILSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: In this civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983, plaintiff Gatling claimed that appellants Roland and Mincey, officers of the Middle College of Georgia Police Department, searched his person and took him into custody without arguable probable cause in violation of his rights under the Fourth Amendment.1 Following discovery, Roland and Mincey moved the district court for summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity. The court denied their motion, concluding that the evidence, considered in the light most favorable to Gatling, established that the conduct Roland and Mincey engaged in violated clearly established Fourth Amendment rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). Roland and Mincey now appeal the district court s qualified immunity ruling. We affirm. The court correctly held that the evidence considered in the light most favorable to Gatling2 demonstrated that Roland and Mincey s conduct violated clearly established Fourth Amendment rights. 1 The Fourth Amendment is applicable to the States under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684 (1961). 2 In considering the evidence in the light most favorable to Gatling, the district court properly eliminated, for summary judgment purposes, all factual disputes. 2 AFFIRMED. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
