Thomas Sailors v. Maxwell Hubka ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                  United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 21-2602
    ___________________________
    Thomas D. Sailors
    lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant
    v.
    Maxwell Hubka, City of Lincoln Police Ofc. #1655, in his individual capacity;
    Cole Jennings, City of Lincoln Police Ofc. #1650, in his individual capacity;
    Daniel Keyes, Special Administrator of the Estate of Paul Keyes, US Marshal
    #3483, in his individual capacity; United States of America; United States Marshal
    Service
    lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the District of Nebraska - Omaha
    ____________
    Submitted: March 7, 2022
    Filed: March 10, 2022
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before LOKEN, BENTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    Nebraska resident Thomas Sailors appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of
    summary judgment on his excessive-force and Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA)
    claims. We affirm the grant of summary judgment. See Greer v. St. Louis Reg’l
    Med. Ctr., 
    258 F.3d 843
    , 846 (8th Cir. 2001). As to the excessive-force claim, we
    agree with the district court that Marshal Keyes’s use of force was not objectively
    unreasonable. See Tennessee v. Garner, 
    471 U.S. 1
    , 11-12 (1985); Tatum v.
    Robinson, 
    858 F.3d 544
    , 547 (8th Cir. 2017); Molina-Gomes v. Welinski, 
    676 F.3d 1149
     (8th Cir. 2012). As to the FTCA claims, we agree with the district court that the
    United States was not liable on the battery claim, as Marshal Keyes’s use of force was
    justified under Nebraska law. See Millbrook v. United States, 
    569 U.S. 50
    , 52-53
    (2013); Eubank v. Kan. City Power & Light Co., 
    626 F.3d 424
    , 427 (8th Cir. 2010);
    see also 
    Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 28-1410
    , 28-1412. We also agree with the district court
    that the negligent supervision and training claim was derivative of the battery claim,
    see Schieffer v. Catholic Archdiocese, 
    508 N.W.2d 907
    , 913 (Neb. 1993), and
    conclude that the record does not support a negligence claim based on Marshal
    Keyes’s discharge of his personal firearm, see Zeller v. County of Howard, 
    419 N.W.2d 654
    , 657 (Neb. 1988).
    Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
    ______________________________
    1
    The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, United States District Judge for the
    District of Nebraska.
    -2-