Case Name: Dennis RILEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HARRIS COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, The, Jointly and Severally, Ryan Williamson, Deputy, Jointly and Severally, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-09-14
Citations: 395 F. App'x 668
Docket Number: No. 10-10516
Parties: Dennis RILEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HARRIS COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, The, Jointly and Severally, Ryan Williamson, Deputy, Jointly and Severally, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before CARNES, MARCUS and HILL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 395
Pages: 668–668

Head Matter:
Dennis RILEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HARRIS COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, The, Jointly and Severally, Ryan Williamson, Deputy, Jointly and Severally, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 10-10516
Non-Argument Panel.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Sept. 14, 2010.
Michael Oliver Mondy, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Jason C. Waymire, Terry Eugene Williams, Williams, Morris & Blum, LLC, Buford, GA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before CARNES, MARCUS and HILL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Dennis Riley appeals the grant of summary judgment to defendant, Ryan Williams, on Riley's various Fourth Amendment claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in connection with his arrest by Williams. Riley also appeals the grant of summary judgment to Williams on Riley's state law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
The district court granted summary judgment to Williams after it concluded that the undisputed facts in this case, taken in the light most favorable to Riley, conclusively demonstrate that Williams did not violate any of Riley's constitutional rights during the course of Riley's arrest. The district court also concluded that there was no evidence that Williams acted with malice during the arrest, as required under Georgia law to establish a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Our review of the briefs on appeal and the record in this case indicate no error in the district court's analysis of the facts or application of the law to those facts. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.