Kreger Murray, Plaintiff, v. Amherst, et al. Defendants, 1 F.3d 1241 (6th Cir. 1993)

Before JONES and NORRIS, Circuit Judges, and CLELAND, District Judge.^* 

ORDER

The individual defendants in this civil rights action appeal the denial of their motion for summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 6th Cir.R. 9(a).

The district court's denial of defendants' motion by marginal entry unduly complicates proper appellate review. As this court has repeatedly held, a district court should set out the specific facts and law supporting its judgment:

When a motion for summary judgment is granted, ... without any indication as to the specific facts and rules of law supporting the court's decision, it is difficult, except in the simplest of cases, for an appellate court to review such a decision. The absence of reasons may also often prejudice the reviewing court's view of the correctness of the decision below.

United States v. Woods, 885 F.2d 352, 354 (6th Cir. 1989). Furthermore, the marginal entry does not satisfy the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 58. Id. at 353.

Accordingly, this cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this order.