Hankins, Ricky A. v. Dice, Tracy J.

UNPUBLISHED ORDER
Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted May 25, 2006*
Decided May 30, 2006
Before
Hon. FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
Hon. DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge
Hon. DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge
No. 05-3889
RICKY A. HANKINS, Appeal from the United States District
Plaintiff-Appellant, Court for the Southern District of
Indiana, Indianapolis Division
v.
No. 1:03-cv-1694-DFH-WTL
TRACY J. DICE, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees. David F. Hamilton,
Judge.
ORDER
Ricky Hankins brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that officers of
the Rushville Police Department violated his rights under the Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendments by unlawfully entering and searching his home and
arresting him, and by using excessive force in doing so. He also claimed false arrest
*
After an examination of the briefs and the record, we have concluded that
oral argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the
record. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
No. 05-3889 Page 2
under Indiana state law. The district court granted summary judgment for the
defendants because the entry and arrest were effected pursuant to a valid body
attachment issued by the Rush County Circuit Court, the officers did not use
excessive force, and the record contained no evidence that the officers searched
Hankins’ home.
On appeal Hankins does not identify any error made by the district court, nor
does he develop an argument with citations to legal authority or the record. See
Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9)(A); Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir.
2001). His brief recites merely his version of the events on the evening in question.
In any event, the district court correctly concluded that the state court’s issuance of
a valid body attachment entitled the police to enter Hankins’ residence to arrest
him. See Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 602–03 (1980); Russell v. Harms, 397
F.3d 458, 466 (7th Cir. 2005). Only in his reply brief does Hankins introduce the
undeveloped assertion that the body attachment was illegal because it had not been
filed at the time of execution, but arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief
are waived. United States v. Alhalabi, 443 F.3d 605, 611 (7th Cir. 2006).
Accordingly this appeal is DISMISSED.