Brees

MEMORANDUM **

Richard Brees appeals the summary judgment entered against him on his federal constitutional and state law tort claims against deputy sheriffs Michael Stringer and Scott Graves (the deputies), arising out of the June 17, 1999 repossession of his vehicle. We affirm in part and reverse in part and remand.

Under modern summary judgment practice “there is no issue for trial unless there is sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party. If the evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-50 , 106 S.Ct. 2505 , 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) (citations omitted). We affirm the summary judgment on the njedical treatment claim and the state law claim of outrage. We conclude, however, that summary judgment was not warranted on Brees’ claims that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated and that he was deprived of property without due process of law.

A. Medical Treatment Claim

Regarding the claim that the deputies violated Brees’ Eighth Amendment rights by failing to attend to his medical needs, the Eighth Amendment is inapplicable…