by the State or valid congressional override, the Eleventh Amendment bars suits against a State or one of its agencies, departments, or officials when the State is the real party in interest or when monetary recovery would essentially be paid from State funds. DeKalb Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Schrenko, 109 F.3d 680, 688 (11th Cir.1997). Under this principle, “a suit against a governmental officer in his official capacity is the same as a suit against [the] entity of which [the] officer is an agent.” McMillian v. Monroe Cnty., Ala., 520 U.S. 781, 785 n. 2, 117 S.Ct. 1734, 138 L.Ed.2d 1 (1997) (internal quotations and citation omitted) (alteration in original). Under Georgia law, sheriffs are state officials for Eleventh Amendment purposes. Manders v. Lee, 338 F.3d 1304, 1328 (11th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). Thus, Sheriff Taitón is entitled to Eleventh
holding that a county is not an arm of the state for purposes of the eleventh amendment holding a suit against a sheriff in his individual capacity was subject to section 1146llls notice requirements because the sheriff was acting in his official capacity holding that suit against county sheriff in his official capacity was suit against county holding that acts by a sheriff which gave rise to the plaintiffs claim against him were taken in the execution of his duties as sheriff and thus the sheriff was immune under  14 from an action seeking damages against him in his individual capacity holding that the sheriff in his official capacity is an arm of the state not the county in establishing useofforee policy at the jail and in training and disciplining his deputies in that regard