Opinion ID: 3063855
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sheriff Chapman’s official immunity

Text: Rylee argues that the district court erred in dismissing his ADA and § 1983 claims against Sheriff Chapman on the basis of official immunity. The Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution bars suit in federal court against an “arm of the state,” except where such immunity is waived by the state or abrogated by Congress. Manders v. Lee, 338 F.3d 1304, 1308 (11th Cir. 2003). Georgia law recognizes its sheriffs as “arms of the state.” Powell v. Barrett, 496 F.3d 1288, 1304 (11th Cir. 2007). Rylee’s brief makes conclusory allegations that Sheriff Chapman is not entitled to immunity, but fails to provide any arguments as to waiver or abrogation. He has therefore waived his opportunity to contest this issue. See Flanigan’s Enters. Inc. Of Ga. v. Fulton County, Ga., 242 F.3d 976, 978 n.16 (11th Cir. 2001) (a party waives an issue where, although the issue was mentioned in passing, the party did not elaborate or provide any citation of authority in support of the issue). For this reason, we conclude that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Sheriff Chapman on the 7 ADA and § 1983 claims, based on official immunity.