Howards v. McLaughlin

478 F. App'x 528
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Howards v. McLaughlin. Read the opinion of the Court — 634 F.3d 1131
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit·Decided July 18, 2012·No. 09-1201, 09-1202·Unpublished

Opinion

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

PAUL KELLY, Circuit Judge.

This matter is before us on remand from the Supreme Court. In Howards v. McLaughlin, 634 F.3d 1131 (10th Cir.2011), we reversed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity as to all Secret Service Agents on Mr. Howards’ Fourth Amendment claims, id. at 1143. We also reversed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity on Mr. Howards’ First Amendment claim as to Agents Daniels and McLaughlin, but affirmed such denial as to Agents Reichle and Doyle. Id. at 1149-50.

The Supreme Court has now reversed our judgment, holding that Agents Reichle and Doyle also are entitled to qualified immunity on the First Amendment claim. Reichle v. Howards, — U.S. -, -, 132 S.Ct. 2088, 2097, 182 L.Ed.2d 985 *529 (2012). Accordingly, all these defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Therefore, we REVERSE the district court’s denial of qualified immunity as to these defendants and REMAND for entry of judgment in favor of these defendants.

*

This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

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

Howards v. McLaughlin, 478 F. App'x 528 (10th Cir. 2012).

478 F. App'x 528 (Howards v. McLaughlin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Howards v. McLaughlin
634 F.3d 1131 (Tenth Circuit, 2011)
Reichle v. Howards
132 S. Ct. 2088 (Supreme Court, 2012)