FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J UNE 15, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 15 61 8 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 8- cv -0 22 71 -TW T AVERY LAMAR MILLER, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff - App el lant , ve rs us R.L. CONWAY, Sh eri ff, FERGURSON, Lieu te na ntDepu ty, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt s - Ap pe ll ees , E. MCKENZIE, Dep uty , et al ., ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt s.

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

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ernDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Jun e 1 5, 2 01 1)Befo re WILSON, PRYOR an d B LACK, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

PER CURI AM: Thi s ap pe al is th e se co ndoc cas io n tha t we h av e rev ie wedth e d is m is sa l o f th e co m pl ai ntof Av ery Lam ar Mi ll er tha t o ffi ci al s o f th e Sh eri ff’s Dep art m en t o f Gwin ne ttCo un ty vio la te d h is civ il rig ht s. 4 2 U.S.C. § 19 83 . In the fir stap pe al , th is Co urt v acat edanord er d en y in g M il le r’s reque stto am en d h is co m pl ai ntto in cl ud e ad di ti on al de fen da nt s an d re ve rs edth e d is m is sa l o f Mi ll er’s cl ai m ab ou t a

“ no tal ki ng ” ru le , bu t we af firm edth e d is m is sa l o f Mi ll er’s cl ai m ab ou t re ta li at io n an d “ th e rem ai nd er o f Mi ll er’s co m pl ai nt .” Mi ll er v . Con way , No. 0 8- 16 51 3 (1 1t h Ci r. Ju ne 3, 2 00 9) . On rem an d, the di st ric t co urt al lo wedMi ll er t o a m en d h is co m pl ai ntto ad d c la im s ag ai ns t Di st ric t At to rn ey Dani el Po rte r an d Dep ut y Cap ta inAlanCrai g, b utth e d is tri ctco urt d is m is se d tho se cla im s fo r fai lu re t o s ta te a cl ai m . The d is tri ctco urt al so gra nt edsu m m ary jud gm en t ag ai ns t M il le r’s cl ai m th atDepu ty Sheri ff R.L. Co nwa y an d F NU Ferg ur so n h adbe enli ab le as supe rv is or s fo r th e “ no tal ki ng ” ru le im po se d b y a th irdoff

ic er. To d et erm in e th e st atus of h is cla im

of r et al ia ti on ag ai ns t Dep ut y Sh eri ff J . Land , Mil le r fi le d a m ot io n fo r cl ari fic at io n. Th e d is tri ctco urt ex pl ai ne d tha t i t h ad“ di sm is se d [Mi ll er’s] retal ia ti on cla im ag ai ns t Lan d” an d, b ecau se “ th e Ele ve nt h C irc ui t [h ad ] affi rm edth e d is m is sa l o f [the ] co m pl ai ntonall cla im s ex cep t the no -ta lk in g ru le 2cl ai m ,” Mi ll er’s “ ret al ia ti on cla im ag ai ns t Lan d was , andrem ai ns , di sm is se d.” Mi ll er n ow ap pe al s the di sm is sa l o f hi s cl ai m s ag ai ns t Lan d andCrai g. We affi rm . W e rea d M il le r’s br ie f to ch al le ng e two rul in gs of t he di st ric t co urt, b utbo th of hi s ar gu m en ts fai l. Fi rs t, Mi ll er erro ne ou sl y arg ue s tha t the di st ric t co urt m is in te rp ret edour pr ev io us de ci si on . This Co urt af firm edth e d is m is sa l o f Mi ll er’s cl ai m s ab ou t re ta li at io n b y Land , Mil le r, No. 0 8- 16 51 3, s li p o p. at2– 3, an d u nd er the law o f th e cas e d oc tri ne , Mil le r is barredfro m rel it ig at in g o ur ho ld in g u nl es s “ ‘(1) a s ub se qu en t tria l . . . pro du ce[d ] subs tant ia ll y di ffer en t ev id en ce, (2 ) co ntro ll in g aut ho rit y ha s s in ce m ad e a co nt rary deci si onof l aw ap pl ic ab le to [hi s cl ai m ], or ( 3) th e p rio r de ci si on was c le arl y erro ne ou s an d wo ul d work m an ife stin

jus ti ce.’” Jo sh i v . Fla . Sta te Uni v. Hea lth C tr., 7 63 F.2d12 27 , 12 31 (11 th Cir . 19 85 ) (quo ti ng Whe el er v . Cit y of P le as an t Gro ve , 74 6 F .2d14 37 , 14 40 (11 th Cir . 19 84 )). Mi ll er d oe s n otarg ue th atan y of t he se ex cep ti on s ap pl y . Seco nd , Mil le r ch al le ng es th e d is m is sa l o f hi s cl ai m th atCrai g o ffer edan d the n fai le d t o a dv is e Mi ll er ab ou t the in ve st ig at io n o f Lan d’s al le ge d re ta li at io n, b ut Mi ll er fa il edto “ al le ge a sp eci fic fed eral rig htvi ol at edby” Crai g. Do e v . Sch . Bd. of Bro wardCn ty., Fla ., 60 4 F .3d12 48 , 12 65 (11 thCir . 20 10 ). Mi ll er al so arg ue s, fo r th e fi rs t t im e o n app eal , th atCrai g i s s ub ject t o s up erv is ory

li ab il ity for de li be rat el y

di sr eg ard in g Lan d’s al le ge d re ta li at io n, b utwe wil l n otco ns id er a 3th eo ry

of l iabi li ty nev er p res en te d t o the di st ric t co urt. See Acces s No w, Inc . v. Sw. Airl in es Co ., 38 5 F .3d13 24 , 13 31 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). The di sm is sa l o f Mi ll er’s co m pl ai ntis AFFIRMED .

4