FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT NOV 15, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T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- 1306 8 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

D. C. Docket N o. 05-00264 -CV -CA P-1 LORETTA L UKE, Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant,

ve rs us ALEXAND ER BROWN, JR ., J. CLAY, #1 66 2, etal., D ef en da nts , DEKALB COUNTY , GA, D ef en da nts -Appe lle es .

Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia (N ove m be r 15, 200 7) Be fo re T JO FL A T , D U BI N A a nd B L A CK , Ci rc uit Jud ge s.2

PE R CU RIA M: T his is anappe al f

ro m the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of sum m ar y j udgm en t i n favor of D eK al b C ounty , G eo rg ia , in ana ct ionbr ough t un de r 42 U

. S. C. § 19 83 b y Lore tta Luke, the m other of Stanley Bates, who w as shot and k illed by Of ficer Alexander Brow n during a confrontation between Ba tes, L uke, and O ffice rs Brow n and Clay

. Of

ficer Brow n shot Bates three tim es. The f irst two shots fired by Brow n wer e fire d in rapid succession using a technique known as “ doub letapping ” or shootin g in control p airs. L uke contended in the district court that D eK al b C ounty

tr ai ns i ts o ff

ic er s to use the double -t ap m ethod an d th at , a s a

m at te r of po li cy , th e d ou bl e-t ap m et ho d i s u nc on st it ut io na l. Af ter an investigation , an internal reviewboard determ ined that Brown w as not j ust if ie d inf ir ing the thi rd

sho t. T he board , the re fo re , f ound tha t the re w as a violatio n of the De Ka lb Count y Police D epartm ent policy and perm itted Off

icer Bro wn t o re si gn fro m

th e p ol ic e d ep art m en t i n l ie u o f be in g t erm in at ed

. T he D eK al b C ounty

P oli ce D ep ar

tm en t’ s po lic y

und er a tta ck in thi s c as e is tha t de ad ly

f or ce c anonl y

be use d w he n a n of

fi ce r or a nothe r pe rs on i s be ing th reat en edwit h d ead ly force , and th atth e th reat is imm in en t. Rule 56(c) of the F ederal R ules of Civil Procedure a utho rizes sum

m ary j udgm en t w he n a ll “ ple ad ing s, de posi tio ns, a nsw er s to int er ro ga tor ie s, a nd3

adm iss ion s onf

ile , tog ethe r w iththe a ff

ida vit s, if a ny , sho w tha t the re is no ge nui ne iss ue a s to a ny

m at er ia l f

ac t and .

. . the m ovi ng p ar tie s are e nti tle d to jud gm en t as a m at te r of

law.” Fe d. R. C iv . P. 56 (c). A ft er r ev ie w ing the r ec or d, a nd r ea din g th e pa rt ie s’ br ie fs , w e ag re e w iththe dis tr ic t c ourt’ s f

ind ing tha t the pol ic y

in que sti on i s no t un co nst itu tio na l r eg ar din g th e u se of f

or ce i n d eal in g wi th su sp ect s ar m edwit h wea po ns at c lo se ran ge . See Tennessee v. Garner , 471 U

. S. 1, 105 S. Ct

. 169 4 ( 1985 ). A lth oughit is unfortunate that Offic er B rown departe d from the county ’ s policy , that depar ture doe s no t m ean th at

the pol ic y

it se lf w as unc onst itu tio na l or

tha t i t w as the m ovi ng fo rc e be hin d th e al le ge d c onst itu tio na l vi ola tio n. A cc or din gly , w e af fi rm the d i s t r i c tc o u rt ’s g r a n to f

s u mm a ry ju d g men t

i n f a v o r o f t h e c o u n t y. AFFIRMED.