Michael Trethewey v. Shawn Stimac , 431 F. App'x 432 ( 2011 )

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 11a0453n.06
No. 10-2285 FILED
Jul 06, 2011
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT LEONARD GREEN, Clerk
MICHAEL J. TRETHEWEY, )
) ON APPEAL FROM THE
Plaintiff-Appellee, ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT
) COURT FOR THE EASTERN
v. ) DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
)
SHAWN STIMAC, )
) OPINION
Defendant-Appellant, )
)
and )
)
JOSEPH JONES, THOMAS VAUGHN, JEFFREY )
BINNS, )
)
Defendants. )
BEFORE: KENNEDY, SILER and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM. This is an appeal by a defendant police officer from an interlocutory ruling
denying his motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s excessive force claim under 42 U.S.C. §
1983 and assault-and-battery claim under state law. The action stems from events that occurred on
June 13, 2007, when defendant City of Flint Police Officer Shawn Stimac and three other officers
arrested plaintiff Michael Trethewey on a parole violation warrant. When Trethewey resisted the
officers’ initial attempt to arrest him, a vehicle chase ensued. When the vehicle in which Trethewey
was a passenger was brought to a halt, he was forcibly restrained, suffering serious injuries.
No. 10-2285
Trethewey v. Stimac
Plaintiff Trethewey has sued all four officers who participated in the arrest, asserting claims
under federal and state law. All four defendants filed dispositive motions challenging Trethewey’s
claims. On September 9, 2010, the district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation
and denied defendants’ motions for summary judgment and to dismiss. In relation to defendant
Stimac’s motion in particular—asserting qualified immunity in defense of the § 1983 claim and
governmental immunity in defense of the assault-and-battery claim—the district court ruled that
genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment in Stimac’s favor. Defendant Stimac
alone filed notice of appeal.1
On appeal, Stimac has not raised any argument that is not fairly and adequately addressed in
the district court’s opinion. Although we review the district court’s ruling de novo, we find no error.
Accordingly, finding that a separate opinion would be duplicative and unnecessary, we hereby
AFFIRM the district court’s order denying Stimac’s motion for summary judgment on the reasoning
of its opinion.
1
Though the district court’s ruling is interlocutory, we have jurisdiction to review it under
the collateral order doctrine.
-2-