NOT RECOMMENDED F OR FUL L -TEXT PUB L I CATI ON File Na me: 11a0876n.06 No. 10-5805 UNI TED STATES COURT OF A PPEAL S FOR THE SI XTH CI RCUI T

J AMES FREEL S, Plaintif f-Appellant ,

v. C O U N T Y O F T IP T O N , T E N NE S S E E ; J

. T

. “PANCHO” CHUML EY; GERAL D SPENCER ; CL ARK DUNL AP; BOB BEA NB L OSSOM, Defendants-A

ppellees , and TI PTON COUNTY SHERI FF ’S DEPARTMENT, Defendant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P E AL FR OM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE WES TERN DI STRI CT OF TEN

NESSEE O P I N I O N

BEF ORE: BA TCHEL DER, Chief J udg e; COL E and COOK, Circ uit J udg es. COL E, Circuit J udg e. P laintiff-Appe llant J ames F ree ls sues Defe ndant-Appe llees County of Tipton, Tenne ssee; Sheriff J .T. “Pancho” Chumley ; Chief De p u t y Clark Dunlap; Deputy Bob Be anblossom; Deputy Ger ald Spencer ; and Def endant T i p t o n County Sheriff’ s Depa rtment (collec tively , “Tipton”). At the district court level, he broug ht numerous cl ai m s under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleg ing constitutional and statutory violations , as we l l as sever al state law claims. The district court gra

nted all of Tipt on’s m otions for summ ary judgme nt on all fede ral c laims, finding that the defe ndants wer e entitled to qualified immunit y . I t declined to exercise jurisdiction over theNo. 10-5805

Freels v . County of Ti

pton, Tennessee, e t al

. state law claims. On appea l, Fr eels challeng es two of the dist ri ct court’s conclusions: that the defe ndants did not violate his Fourth Amendme nt rig ht to an ar rest fr ee f rom excessive for ce, a

nd that defe ndants did not violate Title I I of the Americ ans with Disabilities Ac t, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131 et seq ., by failing to rea sonably

acc ommodate his disability during the ar

rest. On October 12, 2007, Plaintiff-Appellant J ames Fr eels we n t to the Sheriff’ s Depa rtment, housed in the Tipton County J ustice Center, to obtain incident repor ts conce rning a rec ent proper ty dispute with his neig hbor. After obtaining the repor t, Fr eels proce eded to the cler k’s office to initiate

a criminal war

rant ag ainst his neig hbor. At the cler k’s office , Fr eels identified himself by name. An employ ee re co gn i z ed his name as corr esponding to an outstanding arr est war rant for a minor misdemeanor and, pursuant to city policy , summoned the Sheriff’ s Depa rtment. Def

endants Chief Deputy Clark Dunlap, Deputy Be an b l ossom, and Deputy J ay Rodrigue z proce eded to the cler k’s office , wher e t h ey p l ac ed Fr eels under arr est, confisca ted his cane , and escor

ted him to the jail, located e lsewher e in the building. We revie w a g rant of summary judgme nt de novo. See Coble v. City of W hite House, Tenn. , 634 F.3d 865, 867 (6th Cir. 2011). Upon hear ing oral arg ument and car efully considering the arg uments and rec ord on appea l, we conclude that the district court did not er r in g ranting Def endants’ motion for summary judgme nt based on qualified immunit y . We ag ree with the district court that the office rs rea sonably accom m odated Fr eels’s disability , and conseque ntly we do not decide whether the ADA applies to arr ests. On all other issues, we AFF I RM the entry of judgme nt in favor of

defe ndants for the rea sons set forth in the district court’ s opinion.

- 2 -