Case Name: Roland I. OJEGBA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Tim MURPHY, Kim Cole, et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-04-26
Citations: 178 F. App'x 888
Docket Number: No. 05-14115
Parties: Roland I. OJEGBA, PlaintiffAppellant, v. Tim MURPHY, Kim Cole, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before DUBINA, MARCUS and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 178
Pages: 888–889

Head Matter:
Roland I. OJEGBA, PlaintiffAppellant, v. Tim MURPHY, Kim Cole, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 05-14115.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
April 26, 2006.
Clifford Harold Hardwick, Hardwick & Associates, Roswell, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Eddie Snelling, Jr., Atlanta, GA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before DUBINA, MARCUS and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
This is a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 excessive force claim arising from the traffic stop of plaintiff Roland I. Ojegba by Sergeant Tim Murphy of the Kennesaw State University Police Department. Ojegba alleges that several officers, including Sergeant Murphy, pepper sprayed, beat, and choked him while effectuating his arrest. He further asserts racial discrimination claims, alleging police harassment and intimidation. The district court granted summary judgment to the officers on qualified immunity grounds for the excessive force claim, and summary judgment on the racial discrimination claim for lack of evidence. Ojegba makes no argument on appeal as to the racial discrimination claim.
After reviewing the record, reading the parties' briefs and having the benefit of oral argument, we affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment up until the time Ojegba was subdued by the officers under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486 n. 6, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994) (courts should reject allegations in a civil suit that contradict plaintiffs plea of guilty to criminal charges). The fact that in this case the plea was an Alford plea is of no conse quence.
Concerning Ojegba's claim of excessive force, the record does not support it. Because we conclude from the record that no excessive force was used, Ojegba fails to prove a constitutional violation occurred. See Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989).
For the above-stated reasons, we affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment.
AFFIRMED.
. Guilty plea accompanied by an assertion of innocence. See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970).
. See Blohm v. Commissioner, 994 F.2d 1542, 1555 (11th Cir. 1993).