F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT May 11, 20 07 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

N o. 07- 1024 1 Non-A rgum ent Calendar
D. C. Docket N o. 05-00170 -CV -1 NI CKO LA S FE LD ER , Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant,
ve rs us T O N Y H O W E RT O N , W ar de n, DENNIS BROWN, Depu ty W ard en , et al ., D ef en dants -Appe lle es . Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia (M ay 1 1, 200 7)
Be fo re D U BIN A , W IL SO N a nd P RY O R, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

A t the ti m e he f

ile d th is l aw sui t, appe llant N ic kol as F el de r (“ Fe lde r” ) w as a pr iso ne r at

A ugus taS tate Me dic al P ri son in Augus t, G eo rg ia
. F el de r br ough t this
ac tio n un de r 42 U
. S. C. § 19 83 a lle gin g th at de fe ndants Ri le s, T ay lor , a nd W oods on, use d e xc es siv e fo rc e on h im
. F el de r al so c la im ed that de fe ndants Br ow n and H ow er

tonw er e aw ar e that othe r inm at es of the pr iso n w er e be ing be at ena nd/ or

tor tur ed by se curi ty sta ff a nd y et the y f ai le d to take a ny

c or re ct ive
ac tio n. F el de r’ s c om

pla int a lso c ont ai ne d a

tor tur e cl ai m

und er 18 U
. S. C. § 23 40, et seq ., an d s ta te law cl ai m s u nd er t he Geor gi a Tor t Cl ai m s Act . See O.C.G.A. § 50 -2 1- 25 (a). W e re vie wadis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of sum m ar y j udgm en t de novo
. U

. S. Anchor Mfg. , I

nc. v . R ule Industr ies, I

nc. , 7 F.3 d 9 86 , 99 3 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 3)
. Af ter re viewing the record and reading the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the dis tr ic t c ourt pr ope rl y gr an te d th e de fe ndants ’ m oti on f or sum m ar y j udgm en t on F el de r’ s E igh th A m en dm en t e xc es siv e fo rc e cl ai m s and h is F ourte en th Am endm ent due process claim s. T he rec ord dem onstrates that Felder suffer ed at
m ost asup er fi ci al thr ee m ill im et er abr as ionon h is c he st. T he r ec or d a lso dem onstrates that Felder initiated the incident in question by attacking Off

icer Ri le s. F ee lin g th re at en ed , O ff ic er Ri le s r es pond ed

by pus hin g F el de r dow n and hol din g hi m

down un til he lp arr ive d. F el de r re ce ive d no m ar ks o n hi s ne ck

a nd n o3

br uis es . O the r than th e se lf -s er vin g te sti m ony

of fe re d by F el de r, the re w as no ot he r ev id en ce t ha t Offi cers Tay lo r an d Woo ds on us edan y for ce ag ai ns t h im
. In de ed , the m ed ic al e vid en ce de m onstrate d th at F el de r suf

fe re d no f ra ct ur es a nd i n d i c a t e dth a th i s s up e r f

i c i a l ab r a s i o n wa s s u f

f e r e di n ab a s k e tb a l l g a me f i v e d a ys pr io r to th e in ci de nt in qu es ti on . W e al so a gr ee w iththe dis tr ic t c ourt’ s c onc lus ionthat W ar de n H ow er ton and Deputy

W arden Br own w ere entitled to su m m ary j udgm ent because they

we re not pr es en t duri ng the inc ide nt. A s th e dis tr ic t c ourt c or re ct ly f ound , it is w el lse tt le d l aw th at§ 1 98 3 d oe s n ot pro vi de forvi cari ou s l iabi li ty. See M onell v. D ep ’t of Soc
. Se rv

s. , 436 U
. S. 658 ( 1978 ); D en no v . Sc h. B d. of V olu sia Co unt

y , 218 F. 3d 1 267, 127 6 ( 11th C ir
. 200 0)
. B ec au se F el de r fa ile d to e sta bli sh tha t a
co nst itu tio na l vi olatio n oc curr ed , it w as not ne ce ssary

f or the dis tr ic t c ourt t o de te rm in e if

th ere was a po li cy , cus to m or p ract ic e cau si ng su ch de pr iv at io n. See Graham v. Conner , 490 U. S. 386, 394 (198 9). W e also agree with the district
co ur t t ha t Fe ld er’s cl ai m

fora vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 2 34 0, et se q. , f ai ls a s a
m atte r of law . B ec au se the dis tr ic t c ourt de te rm ine d th at the re w as no e xc es siv e fo rce, t he re ca n b e n o t or tu re as de fin edby § 23 40
. Finally , w e agre e that the district court properly dism issed Felder’ s state law cl ai m s.4

Fo r the above -s ta te d r ea sons , a nd b ec au se w e fi nd n o m er it to any of the
ar gum en ts F el de r m ak es in thi s a ppe al , w e af

fi rm the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of
sum m ar y j udgm en t. AFFIRMED.