Emanuel Ford v. City of Birmingham , 144 F. App'x 51 ( 2005 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF
APPEALS
No. 05-11778 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Non-Argument Calendar AUGUST 11, 2005
________________________ THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 03-01956-CV-BE-S
EMANUEL FORD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
BIRMINGHAM, CITY OF,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
_________________________
(August 11, 2005)
Before CARNES, MARCUS and COX, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff Emanuel Ford appeals following the district court’s grant of summary
judgment for the City of Birmingham on Ford’s claims for false arrest and excessive
use of force under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We conclude that the district court properly
granted the City’s motion for summary judgment for the reasons stated in the district
court’s opinions. (R.2-32 and R.2-36.)
Ford also contends that the district court abused its discretion in denying Ford’s
motion to amend his complaint. “[I]t is not an abuse of discretion for a district court
to deny a motion for leave to amend following the close of discovery, past the
deadline for amendments, and past the deadline for filing dispositive motions.”
Carruthers v. BSA Advertising, Inc., 357 F.3d 1213, 1218 (11th Cir. 2004) (quoting
Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc. v. Olin Corp., 313 F.3d 1307, 1315 (11th Cir. 2002).
Given that Ford’s motion to amend the complaint was filed months after the deadline
for amending the complaint had passed, we find no abuse of discretion in the district
court’s denial of Ford’s motion to amend his complaint. (R.2-27 and R.2-30.)
AFFIRMED.
2