Case ID: f-appx_445/html/0892-01.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

Darnell C. PORTER, Appellant, v. Perry WYSE, Investigator, 20th Judicial Drug Crime Task Force, Appellee, John Does, Conway County Probation/Parole Office and 20th Judicial Drug Crime Task Force, Defendant, Brian Tatum, Investigator, 20th Judicial Drug Crime Task Force, Appellee.
    No. 11-1861.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: Nov. 29, 2011.
    Filed: Dec. 5, 2011.
    Darnell C. Porter, Grady, AR, pro se.
    Robert L. Beard, Jr., Janan A. Davis, Jason E. Owens, John M. Rainwater, Rainwater & Holt, Little Rock, AR, for Appel-lee.
    Before MURPHY, ARNOLD, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Arkansas inmate Darnell Porter appeals the district court’s adverse grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Van Burén County police officers Perry Wyse and Brian Tatum. After careful de novo review, see Reed v. City of St. Charles, Mo., 561 F.3d 788, 790-91 (8th Cir.2009), this court concludes that summary judgment was proper. The undisputed evidence shows that Wyse objectively had probable cause to arrest and detain Porter because Porter violated his parole conditions and his parole officer had instructed Wyse to take him into custody. See Veatch v. Bartels Lutheran Home, 627 F.3d 1254, 1257 (8th Cir.2010) (probable cause for warrantless arrest exists when police officer has reasonably trustworthy information that is sufficient to lead person of reasonable caution to believe suspect has committed or is committing crime); Medlock v. State, 79 Ark. App. 447, 89 S.W.3d 357, 366-67 (2002) (parolee may be detained based on probable cause); see also United States v. Brown, 217 F.3d 605, 607 (8th Cir.2000) (police officer’s intent is irrelevant as long as there is sufficient objective evidence establishing probable cause for arrest).

This court finds no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision to deny Porter’s request for additional discovery and rule on the summary judgment motion. See Ray v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 609 F.3d 917, 922 (8th Cir.2010).

This court affirms. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 
      
      . The Honorable G. Thomas Eisele, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.