Case ID: f-appx_620/html/0889-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Amy YOUNG, as Co-Personal Representative of the Estate of Andrew Lee Scott, deceased, John Scott, as Co-Personal Representative of the Estate of Andrew Lee Scott, deceased, Miranda Mauck, individually, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Gary S. BORDERS, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Lake County, Florida, Richard Sylvester, in his individual capacity, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 14-14673.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    Oct. 21, 2015.
    Dorothy Easley, Easley Appellate Practice, PLLC, Miami, FL, Jason J. Recksie-dler, Stephen J. Calvaeca, Mark E. Né-jame, Nejame Law, Orlando, FL, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
    Linda Levines Winchenbach, John M. Green, Jr., John M. Green, Jr., PA, Ocala, FL, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before TJOFLAT and HULL, Circuit Judges, and HALL, District Judge.
    
      
       Honorable J. Randal Hall, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Georgia, sitting by designation,
    
   PER CURIAM:

After review of the record and with the benefit of oral argument by counsel for the parties, this Court finds no reversible .error in the district court’s September 18, 2014 order (1) granting defendants Sheriff Gary S. Borders and Deputy Richard Sylvester’s motion for summary judgment with respect to all of plaintiffs Amy Young, John Scott, and Miranda Mauck’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against Sheriff Borders, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Lake County, Florida, and Deputy Sylvester, in his individual capacity, and state law claims for wrongful death of the decedent, Andrew Scott, assault of Mauck, and false imprisonment of Mauck, and (2) denying plaintiffs Young, Scott, and Mauck’s motion for partial summary judgment with respect to their § 1983 claims against defendant Borders. We echo the district court’s expression of sympathy for the plaintiffs’ loss, but while the facts of this case are tragic, we can find no reversible error in the district court’s ultimate qualified immunity rulings. Accordingly, we must affirm the district court’s final judgment in favor of the defendants on all of plaintiffs’ claims.

AFFIRMED.