SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiffs-appellants Ferdanand Wheel-ings and Glenda Wheelings (“plaintiffs”) appeal from a September 15, 2015 judgment of the District Court granting .the motion by defendants-appellees (“defendants”) for summary judgment. Plaintiffs brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that defendants-appellees, three members of the Derby Police Department, violated' their Fourth Amendment rights by entering the house of Fer-danand Wheelings at 18 Garden Place without a warrant at the request of Myra Wheelings, his ex-wife. 1 (Glenda Wheel-ings, then the fiancée of Ferdanand and now his wife, was then staying at his home as an overnight guest, along with her children.) We assume the parties’ familiarity *402 with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the ease, and the issues on appeal.

Plaintiffs raise four arguments on appeal: that Myra Wheelings lacked actual or apparent authority to consent to defendants’ entry into 18 Garden Place; that even if she did have apparent authority, it dissolved after Ferdanand Wheelings objected to defendants’ presence; that Ferda-nand Wheelings’s objection made defendants’ presence unreasonable because it created ambiguity about Myra Wheelings’s authority; and that defendants unreasonably permitted Myra Wheelings to accompany them inside 18 Garden Place and to remain there after they left.

We need not decide whether defendants violated plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment rights because we conclude that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. 2 “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Mullenix v. Luna, — U.S. —, 136 S.Ct. 305, 308, 193 L.Ed.2d 255 (2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). In determining whether a right- is clearly established, “[t]he dispositive question is whether the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established ... in light of the specific context of the case, not as a broad general proposition.” Id, (emphasis in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). For a right to be clearly established, “[w]e do not require a case directly on point, but existing precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate.” Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 741, 131 S.Ct. 2074, 179 L.Ed.2d 1149 (2011).

Plaintiffs have not identified any such precedent here, nor have we found any case that suggests, much less holds, that defendants’ particular conduct violated plaintiffs’ clearly established Fourth Amendment rights. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 243, 129 S.Ct. 808, 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009).

CONCLUSION

We have reviewed the remaining arguments raised by plaintiffs on appeal and find them to be without merit. For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court.