Michael Trethewey v. Shawn Stimac, et al, No. 10-2285 (6th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 11a0453n.06 FILED No. 10-2285 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ) ) Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ) v. ) ) SHAWN STIMAC, ) ) Defendant-Appellant, ) ) and ) ) JOSEPH JONES, THOMAS VAUGHN, JEFFREY ) BINNS, ) ) Defendants. ) Jul 06, 2011 LEONARD GREEN, Clerk MICHAEL J. TRETHEWEY, BEFORE: ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN OPINION 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-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
