## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 98-2048

___________ Gary M. Lane, * * Appellant, * * v. * * Sarpy County, a body corporate, * * Defendant. * * Patricia J. Bramhall, individually * and in her official capacity as a * deputy county attorney for Sarpy * County; Marcy Tague, individually * and in her official capacity as an * Appeal from the United States employee and agent of Sarpy County, * District Court for the * District of Nebraska Appellees. * * Larry Hellwig, individually and in his * official capacity as a Sarpy County * Deputy Sheriff; Michael A. Tobey, * individually, * * Defendants. * * Michael L. Munch, individually and * in his official capacity as County * Attorney for Sarpy County, * * Appellee. *The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of 1 Nebraska. -2- ___________ Submitted: November 20, 1998 Filed: January 13, 1999

___________ Before McMILLIAN, WOLLMAN and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge. Gary M . Lane (plaintiff) appeals from a final judgment entered in the Unite d States District

Court for the District of Nebraska dismissing his constitutional claims

1 brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Sarpy County, Nebraska, and variou s officials and employees of Sarpy County (collectively defendants). Lane v. Sarp y County , No. 8:CV97-00013 (D. Neb. Mar. 24, 1998) (order and judgment); id

. (Mar. 24, 1998) (memorandum opinion); id. (Oct. 29, 1997) (memorandum and order). Forreve rsal, Lane argues that the district court erred in holding that qualifie d immunit y protects defendants from § 1983 liability for errors made in the preparation and execution of an arr

est warrant intended for another “Gary M. Lane.” For reasons stated below, we affirm. Jurisdiction in the district court was proper based upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343. Jurisdiction in this court is proper b ased upon 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The notice of appeal was timely filed pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a).
As indic ated above, this is a case of mistaken identity. It is undisputed in th e present case that defendants mistakenly arrested and detained plaintiff for-3-

app roximately six hours, believing him to be a different individual with the sam e name. A s a result, plaintiff brought this action alleging, among other things, that defenda nts violated his constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amend ments. Thereafter, defendants filed motions for summary judgment and t o dismiss the complaint. In granting defen dants’ motions for summary judgment, the district court noted that negligent conduct does not give rise to a due process claim pursuant to § 1983

. Lane v. Sarpy County (Mar. 24, 1998) (memorandum opinion), slip op. at 2 (citin g Dav idsonv. Cannon , 474 U.S. 344, 347 (1986); Daniels v. Williams , 474 U.S. 327 , 328 (1986) (“[T]h e Due Process Clause is simply not implicated by a negligent act of an official c ausing unintended loss of or injury to life, liberty, or property.”)). Th e district court held in the present cas e that it is beyond genuine dispute that the conduct of each o f the defendants was at most negligent and did not rise to the level o f recklessness; co nsequently, plaintiff could not establish a due process violation under the Four teenth Amendment. Id. at 2-3 (“While Munch may have been negligent i n failing to discover the dis crepancy in the file, the evidence does not support plaintiff’s claim that Munch was reckless.”); id. (Oct. 29, 1997), sli p op. at 19-20 (“The evidence shows no more than the individual who prepared the warrant mistakenly include d plaintiff’s driver’s license number, birth date, and physical description.”). The district co urt also opined that, “even if the alleged false statements were removed from th e aff idavit, the remaining evidence would be sufficient to support a finding of probable cause to issue the warrant. Thus, plaintiff has failed to establish a violation of hi s Fourth Amendment rights based on the pr ecepts of [ Franks v. Delaware , 438 U.S. 154 (1978)].” Id. at 20.
We agree with the district court that plaintiff cannot establish a constitutiona l violation, even when the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff and all reasonable inferences are resolved in his favor. See, e.g. , Baker v. McCollan , 443 U.S. 137, 145-46 (1979) (law enforcement officers executing arrest warrants are not-4-

const itutionally required to investigate independently every claim of innocence , includi ng claims of mistaken identity). Because plaintiff cannot establish a cons titutional violation, defendants are entitled to summary judgment based o n qualified immunity. In sum, we conclude upon careful review tha t the district court’s analysis of this case i s correct. In our opinion, no further discussion is necessary. The judgment o f the district court is affirmed. See 8 Cir. R. 47B. th A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.