Case ID: f-appx_566/html/0550-01.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

Connie BERRY, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Eric W. Berry; J.W. Berry, Co-administrator of the estate of Eric Berry, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. Brandon DAVIS, an individual; The City of Fort Smith, Defendants-Appellants.
    No. 13-3610.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: Aug. 13, 2014.
    Filed: Aug. 18, 2014.
    David Ray Blades, Blades & Gee, Tulsa, OK, Chris W. Blankenship, Stigler, OK, David Brent Sterling, Sterling & Fausett, Fayetteville, AR, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
    Colby T. Roe, Wyman Rice Wade, Jr., Daily & Woods, Fort Smith, AR, for Defendants-Appellants.
    Before BYE, SMITH, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action involving a Fourth Amendment claim of excessive use of force, Brandon Davis and the City of Fort Smith, Arkansas, appeal the district court’s interlocutory order denying their motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. Upon careful de novo review, we agree with the district court that the existence of a genuine issue of material fact precluded qualified immunity. See Nance v. Sammis, 586 F.3d 604, 609 (8th Cir.2009) (denial of qualified immunity is reviewed de novo; denial of qualified immunity will be affirmed if genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether reasonable officer could have believed his actions were lawful); see also Plumhoff v. Rickard, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 2012, 2019-20, 188. L.Ed.2d 1056 (2014) (court of appeals had interlocutory jurisdiction where officers contended their conduct did not violate Fourth Amendment and, in any event, did not violate clearly established law). Accordingly, we affirm. 
      
      . The Honorable Robert T. Dawson, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.