Thorne v. Lelles, No. 06-4635 (6th Cir. 2007)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 07a0693n.06 Filed: September 25, 2007 No. 06-4635 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT DANIEL THORNE, JR.; DANIEL THORNE, SR.; and SHARON THORNE, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. JOHN LELLES and EDWARD KOROVIC, Steubenville Police Officers; CITY OF STEUBENVILLE, Defendants-Appellants. BEFORE: ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO MEMORANDUM OPINION SUTTON and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges; and FORESTER, Senior District Judge.* PER CURIAM. In this 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 action, plaintiffs allege that Steubenville Police Officers John Lelles and Edward Korovic violated their Fourth-Amendment rights when they seized Daniel Thorne, Jr. in his family s backyard, allegedly beat him with a Maglite flashlight, and arrested him for underage drinking. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting that they were protected from liability under the qualified-immunity doctrine. The district court denied the motion in part, holding that there were genuine issues of material fact on the plaintiffs warrantless-entry, * The Honorable Karl S. Forester, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky, sitting by designation. No. 06-4635 Thorne v. Lelles excessive-force, and false-arrest claims. The defendants filed this interlocutory appeal on the warrantless-entry and false-arrest claims. We affirm in part and reverse in part. Having had the benefit of oral argument and having carefully considered the record on appeal, we are not persuaded that a lengthy opinion is necessary. As to the plaintiffs warrantless-entry claim against Officer Korovic, we AFFIRM for the reasons set forth by the district court. Thorne v. Steubenville Police Officer, 463 F. Supp. 2d 760, 771-74, 775-77 (S.D. Ohio 2006). On the plaintiffs false-arrest claim against Officer Lelles, we likewise AFFIRM for the reasons set forth by the district court. Id. at 774-77. As both parties acknowledged during oral argument, however, there is no evidence in the record that Officer Lelles had any involvement in the warrantless entry of the plaintiffs backyard, nor is there any evidence that Officer Korovic participated in the arrest of Daniel Thorne, Jr. Accordingly, we REVERSE the judgment of the district court on those two latter claims and REMAND the case for further proceedings. -2-