Opinion
No. 06-3707.
Submitted: October 3, 2007.
Filed: October 12, 2007.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.
Patrick Fitzgerald Ester, Oxford, WI, pro se.
Lonnie F. Bryan, Asst. U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office, argued, Minneapolis, MN, for Appellees.
Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.
[UNPUBLISHED]
Patrick Fitzgerald Ester appeals the district court's adverse grant of summary judgment based on qualified immunity. We have carefully reviewed the record and considered Ester's arguments for reversal. See Robinette v. Jones, 476 F.3d 585, 590-91 (8th Cir. 2007) (de novo standard of review). We agree with the district court that the question whether defendants reasonably believed their actions violated the Fourth Amendment turns on the objective reasonableness of their conduct and not on their subjective intent. See McClendon v. Story Comity Sheriffs Office, 403 F.3d 510, 515-16 n. 4 (8th Cir. 2005) (officer's subjective intent is never relevant under Fourth Amendment analysis so long as there exists objective basis for seizure). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny Ester's motion to supplement the record.
The Honorable Patrick J. Schiltz, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Janie S. Mayeron, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.