OPINION

Plaintiff-Appellant James Freels sues Defendant-Appellees County of Tipton, Tennessee; Sheriff J.T. “Pancho” Chumley; Chief Deputy Clark Dunlap; Deputy Bob Beanblossom; Deputy Gerald Spencer; and Defendant Tipton County Sheriffs Department (collectively, “Tipton”). At the district court level, he brought numerous claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, alleging constitutional and statutory violations, as well as several state law claims. The district court granted all of Tipton’s motions for summary judgment on all federal claims, finding that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. It declined to exercise jurisdiction over the state law claims. On appeal, Freels challenges two of the district court’s conclusions: that the defendants did not violate his Fourth Amendment right to an arrest free from excessive force, and that defendants did not violate Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131 et seq., by failing to reasonably accommodate his disability during the arrest.

On October 12, 2007, Plaintiff-Appellant James Freels went to the Sheriffs Department, housed in the Tipton County Justice Center, to obtain incident reports concerning a recent property dispute with his neighbor. After obtaining the report, Freels proceeded to the clerk’s office to initiate a criminal warrant against his neighbor. At the clerk’s office, Freels identified himself by name. An employee recognized his name as corresponding to an outstanding arrest warrant for a minor misdemeanor and, pursuant to city policy, summoned the Sheriffs Department. Defendants Chief Deputy Clark Dunlap, Deputy Beanblossom, and Deputy Jay Rodriguez proceeded to the clerk’s office, where they placed Freels under arrest, confiscated his cane, and escorted him to the jail, located elsewhere in the building.

We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. See Coble v. City of White House, Tenn., 634 F.3d 865, 867 (6th Cir. 2011). Upon hearing oral argument and carefully considering the arguments and record on appeal, we conclude that the district court did not err in granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. We agree with the district court that the officers reasonably accommodated Freels’s disability, and consequently we do not decide whether the ADA applies to arrests. On all other issues, we AFFIRM the entry of judgment in favor of defendants for the reasons set forth in the district court’s opinion.