Hatcher v. Peed

Eleventh Circuit

Hatcher v. Peed

128 F. App'x 105

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedMay 10, 2005

DocketNo. 05-10139; D.C. Docket No. 04-00063-CV-6

StatusPublished

This text of 128 F. App'x 105 (Hatcher v. Peed) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hatcher v. Peed, 128 F. App'x 105 (11th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff/Appellant William E. Hatcher filed an action against the Honorable F. Gates Peed (“Judge Peed”) of the Superior Court of Effingham County, Georgia, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Specifically, Hatch-er alleges that Judge Peed violated Hatch-er’s due process rights by ordering his arrest without cause and granting his adult daughter visitation rights to his minor children. The district court granted Judge Peed’s motion to dismiss on the ground of judicial immunity. Hatcher then perfected this appeal.

This court reviews de novo a district court’s dismissal of a complaint. Simmons v. Sonyika, 394 F.3d 1335 (11th Cir.2004).

After reviewing the record and reading the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the district court correctly dismissed the action against Judge Peed based on the doctrine of judicial immunity. See Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 112 S.Ct. 286, 116 L.Ed.2d 9 (1991); Dykes v. Hosemann, 776 F.2d 942 (11th Cir.1985). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment of dismissal.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff/Appellant William E. Hatcher filed an action against the Honorable F. Gates Peed (“Judge Peed”) of the Superior Court of Effingham County, Georgia, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Specifically, Hatch-er alleges that Judge Peed violated Hatch-er’s due process rights by ordering his arrest without cause and granting his adult daughter visitation rights to his minor children. The district court granted Judge Peed’s motion to dismiss on the ground of judicial immunity. Hatcher then perfected this appeal.

This court reviews de novo a district court’s dismissal of a complaint. Simmons v. Sonyika, 394 F.3d 1335 (11th Cir.2004).

After reviewing the record and reading the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the district court correctly dismissed the action against Judge Peed based on the doctrine of judicial immunity. See Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 112 S.Ct. 286, 116 L.Ed.2d 9 (1991); Dykes v. Hosemann, 776 F.2d 942 (11th Cir.1985). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment of dismissal.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 F. App'x 105, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hatcher-v-peed-ca11-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack