Case Name: Floyd D. MANNING, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steve WILSON, Sheriff, Walker County, Georgia, in his Official and Individual Capacity, et al., Defendants, Ron Clark, Deputy Sheriff, Walker County, Georgia, in his Official and Individual Capacity, Pamela S. Pangle, Parole Officer, State Board of Pardons and Paroles, Walker County, Georgia, in her Official and Individual Capacity, Defendants-Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-02-23
Citations: 228 F. App'x 836
Docket Number: No. 06-13856
Parties: Floyd D. MANNING, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steve WILSON, Sheriff, Walker County, Georgia, in his Official and Individual Capacity, et al., Defendants, Ron Clark, Deputy Sheriff, Walker County, Georgia, in his Official and Individual Capacity, Pamela S. Pangle, Parole Officer, State Board of Pardons and Paroles, Walker County, Georgia, in her Official and Individual Capacity, Defendants-Appellants.
Judges: Before BLACK, BARKETT and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 228
Pages: 836–837

Head Matter:
Floyd D. MANNING, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steve WILSON, Sheriff, Walker County, Georgia, in his Official and Individual Capacity, et al., Defendants, Ron Clark, Deputy Sheriff, Walker County, Georgia, in his Official and Individual Capacity, Pamela S. Pangle, Parole Officer, State Board of Pardons and Paroles, Walker County, Georgia, in her Official and Individual Capacity, Defendants-Appellants.
No. 06-13856
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Feb. 23, 2007.
James A. Satcher, Jr., Office of James A. Satcher, Rome, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Ronald R. Womack, The Womack Law Firm, Lafayette, GA, Devon Orland, Jacqueline Faye Bunn, Office of State Attorney General, Atlanta, GA, for Defendants.
Before BLACK, BARKETT and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Ron Clark and Pamela Pangle appeal from an adverse summary judgment denying them qualified immunity from Floyd Manning's claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that Clark and Pangle violated his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. In our de novo review of the district court's ruling, we first resolve all issues of material fact in favor of the plaintiff, and then proceed to the legal question of whether the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity under his version of the facts. Lee v. Ferraro, 284 F.3d 1188, 1190 (11th Cir.2002). Under Manning's version of the relevant facts, Clark and Pangle "jimmied" the front lock of his house and searched the premises without a warrant, and in the absence of any exigent circumstances. If proven at trial, these facts would compel the conclusion that Clark and Pangle, acting in a discretionary capacity, committed a "clearly established" constitutional violation, Crosby v. Monroe County, 394 F.3d 1328, 1332 (11th Cir.2004). Therefore, they are not entitled to qualified immunity and the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.