Hammett v. Paulding Cnty., 886 F.3d 1335 (2018)

April 6, 2018 · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · No. 16-15764
886 F.3d 1335
Justin HAMMETT, as Administrator of the Estate of Daniel Hammett, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PAULDING COUNTY, GEORGIA, City of Dallas, Georgia, Nathalie D. Whitener, in her individual capacity, Joey Horsley, in his individual capacity, Joseph Mayfield, in his individual capacity, Defendants-Appellees, Gary Gulledge, in his individual capacity and his capacity as Sheriff of Paulding County, Georgia, et al., Defendants.

Justin HAMMETT, as Administrator of the Estate of Daniel Hammett, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
PAULDING COUNTY, GEORGIA, City of Dallas, Georgia, Nathalie D. Whitener, in her individual capacity, Joey Horsley, in his individual capacity, Joseph Mayfield, in his individual capacity, Defendants-Appellees,

Gary Gulledge, in his individual capacity and his capacity as Sheriff of Paulding County, Georgia, et al., Defendants.

No. 16-15764

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Date Filed: April 6, 2018

Gary D. Hooper, Hooper Law Partners, LLC, Atlanta, GA, R. Stephen Griffis, Griffis Law Office, Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Terry Eugene Williams, Jason C. Waymire, Williams Morris & Waymire, LLC, Buford, GA, Harvey S. Gray, Matthew A. Ericksen, Gray Rust St. Amand Moffett & Brieske, LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before JULIE CARNES AND BLACK, Circuit Judges, and WILLIAMS,* District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

The Petition(s) for Rehearing are DENIED and no Judge in regular active service on the Court having requested that the Court be polled on rehearing en banc ( Rule 35, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure ), the Petition(s) for Rehearing En Banc are DENIED.**

The opinion and decision in this case do not decide that physical evidence could never sufficiently contradict sworn, eyewitness, personal-knowledge testimony so as to justify a denial of summary judgment. The inferences that might be reasonably drawn from the pertinent physical evidence here, however, are insufficient to support plaintiff's theory about the shooting incident underlying this case. Plaintiff's theory projects too far past the limits of the evidence that he has actually presented.