Damon Charles Sanford v. Officer Brad Robinson

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-1325
___________________________
Damon Charles Sanford
Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
Officer Brad Robinson
Defendant - Appellee
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville
____________
Submitted: November 14, 2025
Filed: November 20, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, BENTON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Damon Sanford appeals following the district court’s1 adverse grant of
summary judgment in his pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action raising Fourth Amendment
1 The Honorable Christina D. Comstock, United States Magistrate Judge for
the Western District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition
by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

-2-
false arrest, malicious prosecution, and false imprisonment claims against
Washington County Sheriff’s Office deputy Brad Robinson. Having jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.
Upon de novo review, this court concludes that summary judgment was
properly granted on all claims, because Sanford was not subjected to a seizure. See
Davis v. Dawson, 33 F.4th 993, 997 (8th Cir. 2022) (to establish Fourth Amendment
violation, plaintiff must demonstrate that seizure occurred); Gareis v. 3M Co., 9
F.4th 812, 818 (8th Cir. 2021) (standard of review; this court may affirm summary
judgment for any reason supported by record). The issuance of the felony citation
to Sanford did not constitute a seizure, and the evidence did not establish that
Sanford’s voluntary encounter at the Washington County Sheriff’s Office ripened
into a seizure; while Sanford alleged that Robinson grabbed and threatened him, he
offered no competent evidence at summary judgment to rebut Robinson’s evidence
showing otherwise. See Brown v. City of Dermott, 151 F.4th 985, 990 (8th Cir.
2025) (summons to appear in court on criminal charges did not constitute seizure);
Oglesby v. Lesan, 929 F.3d 526, 532–33 (8th Cir. 2019) (stating that consensual
encounters between officers and citizens that do not involve coercion or restraint are
not seizures, and listing factors in determining whether reasonable person would feel
free to terminate encounter); Thomas v. Corwin, 483 F.3d 516, 527 (8th Cir. 2007)
(mere allegations unsupported by specific facts or evidence are insufficient to
withstand motion for summary judgment).
This court finds no abuse of discretion in the district court’s grant of summary
judgment before the discovery period expired, its denial of Sanford’s Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion, or its denial of Sanford’s post-judgment motion for
recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455. See Saylor v. Jeffreys, 131 F.4th 864, 868 (8th Cir.
2025) (standard of review; no ground for reversal where Rule 59(e) motion repeated
arguments that district court rejected); Ballard v. Heineman, 548 F.3d 1132, 1136–
37 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard of review; discovery need not be complete before court
grants summary judgment, unless party files affidavit showing what facts further
discovery may uncover); Fletcher v. Conoco Pipe Line Co., 323 F.3d 661, 663–65

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
(8th Cir. 2003) (standard of review; recusal motion must be made at earliest possible
moment after obtaining knowledge of facts demonstrating basis for such motion, and
adverse ruling does not constitute sufficient basis for disqualification without clear
showing of bias or partiality).
The judgment is affirmed, and Sanford’s pending motions are denied.
______________________________

-- 3 of 3 --