William E. Hatcher v. F. Gates Peed

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: May 10, 2005
• Docket: 05-10139
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT May 10, 2005 No. 05-10139 THOMAS K. KAHN Non-Argument Calendar CLERK ________________________

D. C. Docket No. 04-00063-CV-6

WILLIAM E. HATCHER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

F. GATES PEED, Judge, Superior Court of Effingham County, GA,

Defendant-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia _________________________

(May 10, 2005)

Before DUBINA, HULL and WILSON, Circuit Judges.

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, Hatcher alleges that Judge Peed

violated Hatcher’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.