[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

______ __________________ No. 15

- 13592 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 2:15

- cv - 00457

- AKK

LESLIE WAYNE HILL , Plaintiff

- Appell ant ,
versus MIKE HALE, Sheriff, JACOB REACH, Lieutenant, JASON ORR, WVTM

- TV LLC , Defendant s - Appell ees .

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama

________________________ (February 11, 2016) Before JORDAN , JULIE CARNES and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 15-13592 Date Filed: 02/11/2016 Page: 1 of 32 Leslie Hill appeals th e district court’s dismissal of his federal claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Mike Hale, Jason Orr, and Jacob Reach , of the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Department

. Hill argues the defendants violated his right to procedural due process when they erroneously identified him as a sex offender, issued warrants against him under Alabama’s Sex Offender Reg istration and Notification Act , and publicized his alleged sex - offender status in a television news segment

. T he district court dismissed these claim s on immunity grounds. Upon review, we affirm. 1
The defendants are state officials for sovereign

- immunity purposes. See Carr v. City of Florence , 916 F.2d 1521, 1525 (11th Cir. 1990). “A state official may not be sued in his official capacity unless the state has waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity

. . . or Congress has abrogated the state’s immunity. ” Lancaster v. Monroe County, Ala. , 116 F.3d 1419, 1429 (11 th Cir. 1997) ( internal citations omitted). Neither exception applies in this case. The district court therefore did not err in dismissing suit against the defendants in their official capacities.
Moreover , q ualified immunity limits suit against s tate official s in their individual capacities

. A plaintiff alleging a constitutional violation under § 1983 can only overcome qualified immunity if “(1) the defendant violated a

1 We review de novo the dismissal of a complaint purs uant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)( 6). Davila v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. , 326 F.3d 1183, 1185 (11th Cir. 2003)

.

Case: 15-13592 Date Filed: 02/11/2016 Page: 2 of 33 constitutional right, and (2) this right was clearly established at the time of t he alleged violation.” Holloman ex rel. Holloman v. Harland , 370 F.3d 1252, 1264 (11th Cir. 2004)

. Here, even assuming a due process violation exists, the violation alleged is not “clearly established.” R eputational injury alone is insufficient to invoke the due process clause

. Smith ex rel. Smith v. Siegelman , 322 F.3d 1290, 1296 (11th Cir. 2003)

. Plaintiffs alleging defamation must also allege a “plus ” factor, the deprivation of a “previously recognized property or liberty interest.” Id. at 12 97

- 98. Hill argues that erroneously

- issued warrants establish such a “plus ” factor , but
he cites no authority for the proposition that the mere issuance of a warrant

— absent arrest or prosecution 2

— amounts to a deprivation of property or liberty. The district court therefore did not err in dismissing suit against the defendants in their individual capacities

. AFFIRMED.

2 See Wilson v. Russo , 212 F.3d 781, 786

- 87 (3d Cir. 2000) (“[A] plaintiff may succeed in a § 1983 action for false arrest made pursuant to a warrant if the plaintiff shows, by a p reponderance of the evidence: (1) that the police officer knowingly and deliberately, or with a reckless disregard for the truth, made false statements or omissions that create a falsehood in applying for a warrant; and (2) that such statements or omission s are material, or necessary, to the finding of probable cause.”)

. Here, t he warrants at issue were never enforced. The Sheriff’s D epartment withdrew them just two weeks after they were issued.

Case: 15-13592 Date Filed: 02/11/2016 Page: 3 of 3