JOYCE BROWN, Dr. v. Alan Nabours

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 12a0721n.06
Case No. 11-5794
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
JOYCE BROWN, Dr.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ALAN NABOURS, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
_______________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE MIDDLE
DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
BEFORE: BATCHELDER, Chief Judge; GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge; and COHN, District
Judge.*
ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Chief Judge. On February 18, 2009, Smyrna, Tennessee,
police officers responded to the scene of minor car accident involving appellant Joyce Brown.
Although Brown was not at fault for the accident, based on her appearance and odd behavior, the
officers suspected that she might be intoxicated. Brown consented to a field sobriety test, which
provided further indication that Brown was likely intoxicated. The officers determined that they had
probable cause to arrest her for DUI. An officer placed Brown under arrest and took her to a nearby
hospital for a blood test, to which she had also consented. Several weeks later, the results of the
blood test came back negative and the local prosecutor dismissed the charges.
Brown sued the involved police officers (defendants Alan Nabours, John Liehr, Kevin Krieb,
Marcy Gossett, John Doe #1, and John Doe #2) in their official and individual capacities, claiming
a violation of her constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, malicious
The Honorable Avern Cohn, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by
*
designation.

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 11-5794, Brown v. Nabours, et al.
prosecution and false arrest, abuse of process, intentional infliction of emotional distress, tortious
interference with business relationships, and civil conspiracy. Following discovery, the defendants
moved for summary judgment and Brown dismissed her official-capacity claims. The district court
determined that there were no material issues of disputed fact and concluded that the defendants
were entitled to judgment in their favor as a matter of law as to all claims.
After carefully reviewing the record, the law, and the arguments on appeal, we conclude that
the district court’s Memorandum Opinion and accompanying Order correctly set out the applicable
law and correctly apply that law to the facts in the record. The issuance of a full written opinion by
this court would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the district court’s
Opinion and Order, we AFFIRM.
2

-- 2 of 2 --