Russell W. Smith v. Nick Roundtree, 704 F. App'x 831

Debra Newman, formerly living briefly with the Smiths, complained police were preventing her from retrieving personal property from a shed on the Smiths’ land.
Officers Brown, Roundtree, and Davis responded; Mrs. Smith told officers she would not allow entry or hand over items without a warrant or court order.
Roundtree told Mrs. Smith Newman could retrieve items if she owned them; Davis mistakenly (believing a court order existed) later told the Smiths there was a court order and Newman removed several boxes from the shed.
The Smiths later learned no court order had been issued and sued the three officers and the City under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment violations; they later conceded only a Fourth Amendment unlawful seizure claim was viable.
The district court dismissed the City and, on summary judgment, found the Smiths lacked standing to assert a Fourth Amendment seizure (no possessory interest), granted qualified immunity to the officers, and refused to consider new state-law claims raised for the first time at summary judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing / Fourth Amendment seizure	Smiths: Officers unlawfully seized property from their land; they suffered a possessory injury.	Officers: Smiths had no possessory interest in the items (owned by adult children), so no personal Fourth Amendment injury.	Held: No standing — no demonstrated possessory interest or injury-in-fact.
Possessory interest / bailment	Smiths: Implicitly argued they had custody/possession (including as bailees) of items in shed.	Officers: Children had access and could remove items at will; no bailment under Georgia law.	Held: No bailment/possessory interest; undisputed evidence negates custody.
Qualified immunity	Smiths: Even if no standing, officers acted unlawfully so immunity should not apply.	Officers: No constitutional violation occurred; alternatively, any right was not clearly established.	Held: Qualified immunity proper because there was no constitutional violation (no possessory interest).
State-law claims raised at summary judgment	Smiths: Sought to add Georgia claims (due process, trespass, assault, O.C.G.A. § 51-10-2) in response to summary judgment.	Officers/District Court: New claims cannot be raised for first time at summary judgment after discovery begun.	Held: District court properly declined to consider new state-law claims; appellate court refuses to consider belated statutory argument.

Robinson v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 595 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir.) (summary judgment review is de novo)
Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., 528 U.S. 167 (standing requires injury-in-fact, causation, redressability)
Hollywood Mobile Estates, Ltd. v. Seminole Tribe of Fla., 641 F.3d 1259 (11th Cir.) (injury-in-fact requires invasion of legally protected interest)
Soldal v. Cook Cnty., Ill., 506 U.S. 56 (seizure occurs when meaningful interference with possessory interests exists)
Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (Fourth Amendment rights are personal and not vicarious)
Cordoba v. Dillard's Inc., 419 F.3d 1169 (11th Cir.) (mere speculation insufficient to create genuine fact issue)
Grider v. City of Auburn, Ala., 618 F.3d 1240 (11th Cir.) (qualified immunity framework and discretionary-act threshold)
Hurlbert v. St. Mary’s Health Care Sys., Inc., 439 F.3d 1286 (11th Cir.) (cannot amend complaint by raising new claims at summary judgment)
Access Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir.) (appellate court will not consider issues not raised below)
Bohannon v. State, 555 S.E.2d 112 (Ga. App.) (definition of bailment)
Mossie v. Pilgrim Self-Serv. Storage, 258 S.E.2d 548 (Ga. App.) (no bailment where owner may remove items at will without custodian's knowledge)