FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J AN 27, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 0- 12 52 1 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ D. C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 9- cv -0 08 99 -TW T
SUSAN PORTER, DAMINGA PORTER, Pl ai nt iff s- App el la nt s,
ve rs us RICKY L. JEWELL , in hi s i nd iv idua l an d of fic ia l capa ci ty as Ci ty of McDo no ug h p ol ic e o ffi cer, PRESTON DORSEY, in hi s i nd iv idua l an d of fic ia l capa ci ty as Ci ty of McDo no ug h p ol ic e ch ie f, Defen da nt s- App el le es .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e North ern Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (J an ua ry 27 , 20 12 )Befo re EDMONDSON, W ILSON, andBLACK, Cir cu itJu dg es .

PER CURI AM: Su sa n P orte r, pro ceed in g p ro se, app eal s the di st ric t co urt’s g ran t o f

1
su m m ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of Offic er Ri cky

Jewe ll , Chi ef Pre st on Dors ey , andth e Ci ty of McDo no ug h, Geo rg ia(“ Ci ty”) in he r 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 3 l aws ui t. No 2
rev ers ib le erro r ha s b een sh own ; we af firm . Po rte r’s co m

pl ai ntaro se fro m

th e fo ll owi ng ser ie s o f ev en ts . Port er’s br ot he r to ldOffic er J ewel l, an off ic er i n t he City ’s po li ce fo rce, t ha t h e was
co nc ern edab ou t h is ni ece’s wel l b ei ng be cau se he su sp ect edth atPo rte r was li vi ng wit h aco nv ic te d c hi ldm ol es te r. Upo n t he bro th er’s req ue st , Offic er J ewel l v is it ed Po rte r’s ap art m en t t o d o a“ welf are c he ck ,” bu t t he Offic er l eftwhen no on e
an swe redth e d oo r. Late r th atday , aft er Po rte r cal le d t he po li ce d ep artm en t, Offi cer J ewel l an d
an ot he r of

fic er re tu rn edto th e ap art m en t. Po rte r op en edth e d oo r an d d en ie d t ha t Daming a Porter, Susan Porter’s minor daughter, was also a plaintiff in this case and appea ls the 1 district court’s order
. Be cause Daming a’s appellate arguments are the same as her mother’s, we will not addre ss them separ ately and our analy sis of Porter’s claims applies with equal forc e to Daming a. Although Porte r did not name the City in her c omplaint, when a n office r of the g overnme nt is 2 sued i n his officia l capa city
-- as i n this case -- and “the gove rnment entit y rec eives noti ce and an opportunity

to respond, an of

ficial-c apac ity suit is, in a ll r espec ts othe r than name, to be treated as a suit ag ainst the entity .” Kentucky v. Gra ham, 105 S.Ct
. 3099, 3105 (1985). Be cause the district court treated the City as a party and g rante d summary judgme nt in the City ’s favor , Porter is entitled to challeng e that dec ision on appeal. 2sh e was li vi ng with am an . Alth ou gh sh e in vi te d t he off ic ers to in sp ectth e ap art m en t, the off

ic ers di d n oten te r. The p art ie s d is pu te whathapp en edne xt . Acco rd in g t o P orte r, sh e cl os edth e d oo r; a ndOffic er J ewel l b eg anba ng in g o n a nd ki ck in g t he do oran d c on ti nu edforsev eral m in ut es . Port er was th enun ab le to op enth e d oo r aft er the off ic ers lef t b ecau se th e d oo r’s de adbo ltan d d oo rfram e
were cr ack ed . Port er an d h er d au gh te r were c on fin edin th e ap art m en t fo r on e ho urbe fo re the ap art m en t co m pl ex ’s m ai nt en an ce wo rk er arriv edto rep ai r th e do or . Port er re po rte d the in ci de ntto th e p ol ic e d ep art m en t; bu t, af te r a b rie f in ve st ig at io n, Ch ie f Dor se y co nc lu de d t ha t t he m at te r di d n otwarran t an in te rn al affa irs in ve st ig at io n. Po rte r fi le d aciv il rig ht s co m pl ai ntag ai ns t Offi cer J ewel l an d C hi ef Do rs ey , in th ei r in di vi du al an d o ffi ci al cap aci ti es , pu rs uantto sec ti on 19 83 . She all eg ed th atwhen Offic er J ewel l d am ag edhe r do or , he i nt erfe redwit h h er p os se ss ory in te res t i n h er ap art m en t an d re st rai ne d h er m ov em en t, i n v io la ti on of t he Fo urth Am en dm en t. She als o c on te nd edth atCh ie f Dor se y , who was Off ic er J ewel l’s 3
supe rv is or , was l iabl e fo r Offi cer J ewel l’s co nduc t b ecau se he fai le d t o p ro vi de pr op er trai ni ng an d d is ci pl in e. Becaus e Po rte r su edbo th off ic ers in th ei r of

fic ia l

Porter also alleg ed a Four teenth Amendment due proce ss violation. Be cause she does not raise 3 that claim on appea l, she has abandone d it. See Irwin v. Hawk, 40 F. 3d 347, 347 n.1 (11th Cir. 1994). 3cap aci ti es , th e d is tri ctco urt co ns tru edth e co m pl ai ntas a ss ert in g am

un ic ip al li ab il it y cla im ag ai ns t t he Cit y . The o ffi cers an d t he Cit y fil eda m ot io n fo r
su m m ary jud gm en t wh ic h t he di st ric t co urt g ran te d. W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t d e n ov o, an d we vi ew th e ev id en ce an d a ll reas on ab le factua l i nf eren ces in th e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e n on m ov in g p art y . Sko p v . Cit y of At la nt a, 48 5 F .3d11 30 , 11 36 (11 th Cir
. 20 07 ). “ Su m

m ary jud gm en t i s ap pr op ria te if t he ev id en ce es tabl is he s ‘no ge nu in e is su e as to any

m at eri al factan d t ha t t he m ov in g p art y is en ti tl edto jud gm en t as a
m at te r of law.’” McC orm ic k v . Cit y of F ort Lau de rd al e, 33 3 F .3d12 34 , 12 43 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 3) . W e co ns tru e li be ral ly pro se p le ad in gs . Tann enbaum v. Un it ed St at es , 14 8 F .3d12 62 , 12 63 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ). Qua li fie d i m

m un ity sh ie ld s a g ov ern m en t o ffi ci al su edinhi s i nd iv idua l cap aci ty from

li ab il it y forsec ti on 19 83 cla im s i f th e o ffi ci al ’s con du ctdi d n ot

“ vi ol at e cl earl y

est ab li sh edst atut ory

or c on st itut io na l ri gh ts of wh ic h areas on ab le pe rs on wou ldha ve kn own .” Jo rd anv. Do e, 38 F.3d15 59 , 15 65 (11 thCir . 19 94 ). Onc e anoff

ic er es tabl is he s t ha t “ he was a ct in g wi th in th e sc op e o f hi s di sc ret io na ry

au th or it y when th e al le ge dl y

wron gf ul act s o ccu rred ,” th e b ur de n sh ift s t o t he pl ai nt iff

to sh ow t ha t (1 ) th e fac ts , as a ll eg edan d v ie wedin th e li gh t

4m os t fa vo rab le to th e p la in ti ff, es tabl is h aco ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n a nd(2) th e

co ns ti tu ti on al rig htvi ol at edcle arl y was a lre ady

est ab li sh ed . Id. The Fo urth Am en dm en t p ro te ct s p eo pl e “ ag ai ns t unr eas on ab le sea rch es an d
se iz ur es .” U.S. Con st . am en d. IV. A “ se iz ur e” o f pr op ert y un de r th e Fo urth Am en dm en t “ oc cu rs when ‘ th ere i s s om e m ean in gf ul in te rfer en ce wi th an in di vi du al ’s po ss es so ry

in te res ts in th atpro pe rty.’ ” So ld al v. Co okCn ty., Ill ., 11 3 S.Ct . 53 8, 5 43 (19 92 ). The Co ns ti tu ti on , ho wev er, “ is no t co nc ern ed ” wit h d e m in im is vi ol at io ns . In gr ah am v. Wrig ht , 97 S.Ct . 14 01 , 14 14 (19 77 ); s ee al so Uni te d S ta te s v . Hern an de z, 41 8 F .3d12 06 , 12 12 n.7 (11 thCir . 20 05 ) (s ta ti ng th at“ [o ]f trif le s t he la w do es no t co nc ern it se lf: De m in im is no n c ur atlex ”); Uni te d S ta te s v . Pur cel l, 23 6 F .3d12 74 , 12 79 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ) (co nc lu di ng th ata de m in im is de la y du rin g a tra ffi c st op di d n otvi ol at e th e Fo urth Am en dm en t); Nol in v. Is be ll , 20 7 F .3d12 53 , 12 57 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ) (s ta ti ng th at“ th e ap pl ic at io n o f de m in im is for ce, wit ho ut
m or e, wil l n otsupp ort a c la im forex ces si ve for ce i n v io la ti onof t he Fo urth Am en dm en t” ). Altho ug h we h av e n otad dr es se d t he am ou ntof p ro pe rty dam ag e requi redto co ns ti tu te a “ se iz ur e” o f th atpro pe rty un de r th e Fo urth Am en dm en t,
we are c on vi nc ed-- b as edon ou r de ci si on s i n the se ot he r co nt ex ts -- th ata de

5m in im is am ou ntof d am ag e d oe s n otris e to th e le ve l o f a Fo urth Am en dm en t

vi ol at io n. Viewi ng th e fac ts inth e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to Po rte r, Offi cer J ewel l ba ng edon an d k ic ke d h er ap art m en t d oo r se ve ral ti m es unpr ov ok ed , crack in g t he do or fram e an d d am ag in g t he de adbo lt . Office r Je well di d n ot , ho wev er, k ic k t he do ordo wn o r pe rm an en tl y de st ro y th e d oo r. Thu s, atm os t, the da m ag e was on ly a te m po rary dep riv at io n o f Po rte r’s po ss es so ry in te res ts . Cf. Uni te d S ta te s v . Ja co bs en , 10 4 S .Ct. 1 65 2, 1 66 2 (1 98 4) (co nc lu di ng th ata fi el d t es t o f su sp ect ed drug s “ di d a ffec t re sp on de nt s’ po ss es so ry in te res ts pro te ct edby the [Fo urth ] Am en dm en t, s in ce b y

de st ro y in g aqu an ti ty of th e p owd er i t co nv ert edwhatha d be enon ly a tem

po rary dep riv at io n o f po ss es so ry in te res ts in to a pe rm an en t o ne .”). Mo reo ve r, be cau se th is da m ag e was rel at iv el y m in or an d was ab le to be rep ai red wit hi n a n h ou r, we ag ree wi th th e d is tri ctco urt’s co nc lu si on th atth e d am ag e was de m in im is . Thu s, t he re was no “ m ean in gf ul in te rfer en ce” wi th Po rte r’s po ss es so ry

in te res ts an d n o “ se iz ur e” o f pr op ert y wit hi n t he m ean in g o f th e Fo urth Am en dm en t. See So ld al , 11 3 S .Ct. at54 3.

6Offi cer J ewel l’s co nduc t al so di d n otres ul t i n a“ se iz ur e” o f Po rte r an d h er

daug ht er u nd er the Fo urthAm en dm en t. An o ffi cer “ se iz es ” a p ers onforpu rp os es 4 of th e Fo urth Am en dm en t wh enhe “ res tra in s t he free do m of ape rs on to walk away. ” Bro wer v . Cnt y . of In y o, 1 09 S.Ct . 13 78 , 13 80 (19 89 ). “ Vio la ti on of the Fo urthAm en dm en t re qu ire s an in te nt io na l ac qu is it io n o f ph y si cal co nt ro l.” Id . at 13 81 . Thu s, a Fo urth Am en dm en t s ei zu re o ccu rs “ on ly whe n t he re i s a go ve rn m en ta l t erm in at io n o f free do m of m ov em en t t hr ou gh m ean s i nt en ti on al ly ap pl ie d.” Id. (e m

ph as is in ori gi na l). The ev id en ce, v ie wedin th e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to Po rte r, in di cat es th at Offi cer J ewel l d am ag edPo rte r’s do orin su ch a way th atPo rte r an d h er d au gh te r
were u nabl e to ex it . Nothi ng in th e rec or d e vi de nc es th atOffic er J ewel l i nt en de d to trap P orte r in si de . In fa ct , on e wou ldex pe ctth atba ng in g a ndki ck in g ado or
wou ldres ul t i n t he do orbe in g fo rcedop en , no t fo rcedclo se d. Be cau se Offic er Je well di d n otres tra in Po rte r orhe r daug ht er “ th ro ug h m ean s i nt en ti on al ly ap pl ie d,” th ere was no “ se iz ur e” o f pe rs on s u nd er the Fo urth Am en dm en t. Bec au se Po rte r fai le d t o e st ab li sh th atOffic er J ewel l’s co nduc t re su lt edin a
co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n, Offi cer J ewel l was en ti tl edto qu al ifi edimm un it y . See
Although it is not clea

r whether this claim was addre ssed below, we may aff irm a g rant of 4 summary judgme nt for any rea son supported by the rec ord. See Birc oll v. Miami-Dade County , 480 F.3d 1072, 1088 n.21 ( 11th Cir. 2007). 7Jo rd an , 38 F.3dat 1 56 5. An d P orte r’s cl ai m s ag ai ns t Ch ie f Dor se y an d the Cit y

-- ba se d o n t he ir l iabi li ty for Offi cer J ewel l’s al le ge d c on st itut io na l v io la ti on -- al so
m us t fa il
. AFFIR MED.

8