Case ID: f-appx_144/html/0051-01.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

Emanuel FORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF BIRMINGHAM, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 05-11778.
    D.C. Docket No. 03-01956-CV-BE-S.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    Aug. 11, 2005.
    
      James M. Wooten, Law Offices of James M. Wooten, P.C., Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Fredric L. Fullerton, II, Birmingham, AL, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before CARNES, MARCUS and COX, Circuit Judges.
    Non-Argument Calendar
   PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff Emanuel Ford appeals following the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the City of Birmingham on Ford’s claims for false arrest and excessive use of force under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We conclude that the district court properly granted the City’s motion for summary judgment for the reasons stated in the district court’s opinions. (R.2-32 and R.2-36.)

Ford also contends that the district court abused its discretion in denying Ford’s motion to amend his complaint. “[I]t is not an abuse of discretion for a district court to deny a motion for leave to amend following the close of discovery, past the deadline for amendments, and past the deadline for filing dispositive motions.” Carruthers v. BSA Advertising, Inc., 357 F.3d 1213, 1218 (11th Cir.2004) (quoting Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc. v. Olin Corp., 313 F.3d 1307, 1315 (11th Cir. 2002). Given that Ford’s motion to amend the complaint was filed months after the deadline for amending the complaint had passed, we find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of Ford’s motion to amend his complaint. (R.2-27 and R.2-30.)

AFFIRMED.