O'Brien v. Barrows, 020314 FED2, 13-872-cv

• Party Name: KELLEY S. O'BRIEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ROBERT BARROWS, Police Officer, Shelburne Police Department, TOWN OF SHELBURNE, Defendants-Appellees, JAMES WARDEN, Chief, Shelburne Police Department, TOWN MANAGER OF SHELBURNE, SHELBURNE POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendant.
• Attorney: For Plaintiff-Appellant: Tara J. Devine, Law Office of Tara J. Devine, Rutland, VT For Defendant-Appellee Barrows: James F. Carroll, English, Carroll & Boe, PC, Middlebury, VT; Kevin J. Coyle, McNeil, Leddy & Sheahan, P.C, Burlington, VT. For Defendant-Appellee Town Nancy G. Sheahan and Kevin J. ...
• Judge Panel: Present: ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Chief Judge, RICHARD C. WESLEY, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges.
• Case Date: February 03, 2014
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals, U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

KELLEY S. O'BRIEN, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

ROBERT BARROWS, Police Officer, Shelburne Police Department, TOWN OF SHELBURNE, Defendants-Appellees,

JAMES WARDEN, Chief, Shelburne Police Department, TOWN MANAGER OF SHELBURNE, SHELBURNE POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendant. ^[1]

No. 13-872-cv

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

February 3, 2014

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

SUMMARY ORDER

Rulings by summary order do not have precedential effect. Citation to a summary order filed on or after January 1, 2007, is permitted and is governed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and this court's Local Rule 32.1.1. When citing a summary order in a document filed with this court, a party must cite either the Federal Appendix or an electronic database (with the notation "summary order"). A party citing a summary order must serve a copy of it on any party not represented by counsel.

At a stated Term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, at 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 3^rd day of February, two thousand fourteen.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Vermont (Murtha, J.).

For Plaintiff-Appellant: Tara J. Devine, Law Office of Tara J. Devine, Rutland, VT

For Defendant-Appellee Barrows: James F. Carroll, English, Carroll & Boe, PC, Middlebury, VT; Kevin J. Coyle, McNeil, Leddy & Sheahan, P.C, Burlington, VT.

For Defendant-Appellee Town Nancy G. Sheahan and Kevin J. Coyle, McNeil, of Shelburne: Leddy & Sheahan, P.C, Burlington, VT.

Present: ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Chief Judge, RICHARD C. WESLEY, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges.

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the judgment of the district court be and hereby is AFFIRMED.

Plaintiff-appellant Kelley O'Brien appeals from a judgment entered on February 7, 2013, by the United States District Court for the District of Vermont (Murtha, J.), granting defendants-appellees' motion for summary judgment in its entirety. On appeal, O'Brien challenges the district court's dismissal of his excessive force claim brought against Officer Robert Barrows and his failure-to-train claim brought against the Town of Shelburne ("Town"). We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and issues on appeal.

The district court dismissed O'Brien's excessive force claim against Barrows after finding that Barrows was entitled to qualified immunity because it was objectively reasonable for Barrows to believe that his conduct did not violate any clearly established constitutional right. On appeal, O'Brien challenges this finding, arguing that, based on clearly established law, it was not objectively reasonable for Barrows to use deadly force in seeking to apprehend him.

"A police officer is entitled to qualified immunity if (1) his conduct does not violate a clearly established constitutional right, or (2) it was 'objectively reasonable' for the officer to believe his conduct did not violate a clearly...