Joyce Brown v. Alan Nabours, No. 11-5794 (6th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 12a0721n.06 FILED Case No. 11-5794 Jul 03, 2012 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT LEONARD GREEN, Clerk JOYCE BROWN, Dr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ALAN NABOURS, et al., Defendants-Appellees. _______________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE BEFORE: BATCHELDER, Chief Judge; GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge; and COHN, District Judge.* ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Chief Judge. On February 18, 2009, Smyrna, Tennessee, police officers responded to the scene of minor car accident involving appellant Joyce Brown. Although Brown was not at fault for the accident, based on her appearance and odd behavior, the officers suspected that she might be intoxicated. Brown consented to a field sobriety test, which provided further indication that Brown was likely intoxicated. The officers determined that they had probable cause to arrest her for DUI. An officer placed Brown under arrest and took her to a nearby hospital for a blood test, to which she had also consented. Several weeks later, the results of the blood test came back negative and the local prosecutor dismissed the charges. Brown sued the involved police officers (defendants Alan Nabours, John Liehr, Kevin Krieb, Marcy Gossett, John Doe #1, and John Doe #2) in their official and individual capacities, claiming a violation of her constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, malicious * The Honorable Avern Cohn, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation. No. 11-5794, Brown v. Nabours, et al. prosecution and false arrest, abuse of process, intentional infliction of emotional distress, tortious interference with business relationships, and civil conspiracy. Following discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment and Brown dismissed her official-capacity claims. The district court determined that there were no material issues of disputed fact and concluded that the defendants were entitled to judgment in their favor as a matter of law as to all claims. After carefully reviewing the record, the law, and the arguments on appeal, we conclude that the district court s Memorandum Opinion and accompanying Order correctly set out the applicable law and correctly apply that law to the facts in the record. The issuance of a full written opinion by this court would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the district court s Opinion and Order, we AFFIRM. 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.
