[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-13001

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cv-02936-TWT

JIMMY DAVIS, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CITY OF ATLANTA, GEORGIA,

OFFICER J. M. WOLFORD,

in his individual and official capacity, 

SUHAIL ALUTAIBI, 

 Defendants - Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________

(November 18, 2014)

Case: 14-13001 Date Filed: 11/18/2014 Page: 1 of 4 
2

Before WILSON, JORDAN, and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Jimmy Davis brought this action for damages against Officer J. W. Wolford 

and the City of Atlanta, Georgia under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that the 

defendants violated his constitutional rights by arresting him without probable 

cause and using excessive force.1

 The district court granted summary judgment for 

Officer Wolford on the basis of qualified immunity, and for the City because Davis 

failed to demonstrate any constitutional deprivation resulting from a City custom 

or policy. 

Wolford arrested Davis for following too closely after Davis’s automobile 

collided with a vehicle operated by Suhail Alutaibi on August 1, 2011, on 

Piedmont Avenue in Atlanta. There was a dispute about who was at fault, and 

Wolford credited the version of events given by Alutaibi rather than Davis. Davis 

contends that he did not have a chance to explain his side of the story and that he 

began asking Wolford to call a supervisor. Wolford asked Davis to sign the 

citation. Davis claims that as he was moving to sign it, Wolford placed him in 

handcuffs and moved him to the back of Wolford’s patrol car. Wolford contends 

that Davis refused to sign the citation. After complaints by Davis that the 

handcuffs were too tight and that there was a witness who could verify his version 

 1 Wolford also asserted several state law claims, but these are not part of this appeal. 

Case: 14-13001 Date Filed: 11/18/2014 Page: 2 of 4 
3

of events, Atlanta Police Department supervisors were called to the scene along 

with the eyewitness who eventually verified Davis’s version of the accident. The 

supervisors apologized to Davis and released him. Davis later filed an official 

complaint with the Atlanta Police Department, which was investigated and resulted 

in an official determination that Wolford had failed to conduct a proper accident 

investigation. Because Davis was treated for injuries to his wrist, and sustained 

further injury including a torn rotator cuff, he also filed a complaint against 

Wolford and the City alleging that his constitutional right to be free from an 

unreasonable seizure was violated and that he was subjected to excessive force.

After thorough review, we agree with the district court that, although 

Wolford could have conducted a more thorough investigation at the scene, the 

investigation was not so deficient as to deprive Wolford of qualified immunity. 

Wolford is entitled to qualified immunity from suit if he had “arguable probable 

cause” for the arrest. See Crosby v. Monroe County, 394 F.3d 1328, 1332 (11th 

Cir. 2004). It was within his discretion to initially credit the account of Alutaibi in 

determining who was responsible for the accident. Unlike Kingsland v. City of

Miami,

2 the record here lacks any indication that Officer Wolford fabricated or 

misrepresented any information to support probable cause for Davis’s arrest. The 

district court correctly held that, under these circumstances, Davis did not establish 

 2 See 382 F.3d 1220, 1226-27 (11th Cir. 2004). 

Case: 14-13001 Date Filed: 11/18/2014 Page: 3 of 4 
4

that no reasonable officer could have thought there was probable cause to arrest 

him. 

Additionally, the district court correctly determined that Officer Wolford is 

entitled to qualified immunity on Davis’s excessive force claim. The record does 

not demonstrate that the amount of force used was plainly unlawful, and we have 

previously acknowledged that “the typical arrest involves some force and injury.” 

Rodriguez v. Farrell, 280 F.3d 1341, 1351-53 (11th Cir. 2002). The district court 

held that the handcuffing in this case did not constitute excessive force, and we 

agree. We also agree with the district court that Davis’s vague contention that the 

City failed to properly train and supervise Officer Wolford because of an official 

policy or custom of the City is also without merit. See Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. 

Servs. of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 694, 98 S. Ct. 2018, 2037-38 (1978).

Accordingly, under the facts alleged by Davis, we conclude that the district 

court’s summary judgment in favor of the defendants is due to be 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 14-13001 Date Filed: 11/18/2014 Page: 4 of 4