Betina Carver Howard v. Smith County, Tennessee

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 13a0223n.06
Case No. 11-6254
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
BETINA CARVER HOWARD, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
SMITH COUNTY, TENNESSEE, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
_______________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE MIDDLE
DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
BEFORE: BATCHELDER, Chief Circuit Judge; COLE, Circuit Judge; and ROSEN, District
Judge.*
ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Chief Circuit Judge. Appellant Betina Howard was a
passenger in a car driven by her brother, Jimmy Carver. While attempting to drop Howard off at her
home, Carver overshot the driveway, made a u-turn in the street, and then pulled into Howard’s
driveway. Moments later, a police car pulled up and the officer approached to ask Carver if he had
been drinking. Carver admitted that he had been drinking and agreed to a field sobriety test. While
the officer was attempting to give Carver the test, Howard stood within two feet of the officer,
yelling and cursing at him. When other officers arrived, Howard continued to harangue and argue
with the first officer, attempting to prevent him from administering the sobriety test. After numerous
warnings, the officer finally arrested and handcuffed Howard, charging her with disorderly conduct,
resisting arrest, drug possession, and possession of drug paraphernalia. She was released on bond
and the charges were eventually dismissed.
The Honorable Gerald E. Rosen, Chief United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan,
*
sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 11-6254, Howard, et al. v. Smith, et al.
Howard sued the officer and the city in state court, claiming assault and battery, aggravated
assault, false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional
distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligent hiring, outrageous conduct, excessive
force, loss of consortium, and denial of medical treatment. She raised federal constitutional claims
for negligent hiring, failure to train and/or supervise, and excessive force. The defendants removed
the case to federal court and, after discovery, moved for summary judgement. The district court
granted summary judgment on the federal law claims and remanded the state law claims to state
court.
After carefully reviewing the record, the law, and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the
district court’s order and opinion correctly sets out the applicable law and correctly applies 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, we AFFIRM.
2

-- 2 of 2 --