Christopher Bryant White v. City of LaGrange, GA, et al, No. 13-13337 (11th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 13-13337 Date Filed: 11/05/2013 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT __________________________ No. 13-13337 Non-Argument Calendar __________________________ D.C. Docket No. 3:12-cv-00054-TCB CHRISTOPHER BYRANT WHITE, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus CITY OF LAGRANGE, GA, LOUIS M. DEKMAR, in his official and individual capacity as Chief of Police for the City of LaGrange, Georgia, K-9 UNIT, OFFICER J. CLOWER, individually and in his official and individual capacity, JOHN DOE, in his official and individual capacity, Defendants-Appellees. __________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia __________________________ (November 5, 2013) Before HULL, MARCUS, and COX, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 13-13337 Date Filed: 11/05/2013 Page: 2 of 2 Christopher White challenges on this appeal the district court s order granting the Defendants summary judgment. The district court correctly held that White abandoned all claims in his response to the Defendants summary judgment motion except for his claim against Officer Clower in his individual capacity. (Dkt. 24 at 5 6.) Although White appeals against all Defendants, he presents no argument that the City of LaGrange is liable. White argues only that the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Clower individually on White s 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 claim that Clower used excessive force in arresting him. The district court held that Clower was entitled to qualified immunity because Clower did not violate a clearly established right. White contends that the facts asserted in his affidavit show that Clower violated a clearly established constitutional right. After careful review, we conclude that the district court correctly held that no reasonable jury could believe White s affidavit. (Dkt. 24 at 4 n.1.) See Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380, 127 S. Ct. 1769, 1776 (2007) ( When opposing parties tell two different stories, one of which is blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adopt that version of the facts for the purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment. ). AFFIRMED. 2
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.
