Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 2139-3, PageID.39455 Filed 05/18/21 Page 1 of 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 2
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 2139-3, PageID.39456 Filed 05/18/21 Page 2 of 7
`Fox v. Michigan State Police Dept., 173 Fed.Appx. 372 (2006)
`2006 Fed.App. 0142N
`
`[6] arrestee was estopped from arguing that his arrest was
`made without probable cause after he pled guilty to the
`resulting offenses.
`
`Affirmed.
`
`Procedural Posture(s): On Appeal; Motion for Summary
`Judgment.
`
`West Headnotes (6)
`
`173 Fed.Appx. 372
`This case was not selected for
`publication in West's Federal Reporter.
`See Fed. Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1
`generally governing citation of judicial
`decisions issued on or after Jan. 1, 2007.
`See also U.S.Ct. of App. 6th Cir. Rule 32.1.
`United States Court of Appeals,
`Sixth Circuit.
`
`Jamie FOX, Plaintiff–Appellant,
`v.
`MICHIGAN STATE POLICE DEPARTMENT,
`et al., Defendants–Appellees.
`
`No. 04–2078.
`|
`Feb. 24, 2006.
`
`Synopsis
`Background: Pro se arrestee brought civil rights suit
`against law enforcement officers, alleging that his Fourth
`Amendment rights were violated when officers searched and
`arrested him and searched his vehicle. The United States
`District Court for the Western District of Michigan granted
`summary judgment to police officers, and arrestee appealed.
`
`Holdings: The Court of Appeals, Julia Smith Gibbons, J.,
`held that:
`
`[1] exhibits that were attached to police officers' dispositive
`motion to dismiss were not “pleadings” that were subject to
`a motion to strike;
`
`[2] court was not required to remove unauthenticated copies
`of court records and police reports from the record before
`deciding police officers' dispositive motion to dismiss;
`
`[1]
`
`[2]
`
`Striking Pleading
`
`Federal Civil Procedure
`or Matter Therein
`Exhibits that were attached to police officers'
`dispositive motion to dismiss civil rights claims
`against them were not “pleadings” that were
`subject to a motion to strike, even though exhibits
`included uncertified and unauthenticated copies
`of court records and police reports.
`
`96 Cases that cite this headnote
`
`Matters
`
`Federal Civil Procedure
`considered in general
`Federal district court was not required to remove
`unauthenticated copies of court records and
`police reports from the record before deciding
`police officers' dispositive motion to dismiss
`civil rights case against them, even though the
`unauthenticated documents were inadmissible
`in evidence, where court did not rely on
`the documents when deciding the dispositive
`motion, and federal procedural rules did not
`require court to remove documents other than
`pleadings from the record in a case.
`
`39 Cases that cite this headnote
`
`Civil Rights
`Arrest, search, and detention
`Pro se arrestee sufficiently stated claim under §
`1983 by asserting that he was outside his home
`to see his children, that a personal protection
`order was in effect but that he was outside of
`the restricted area, and that police officers who
`had responded to allegation of a violation of the
`personal protection order searched arrestee and
`
`[3] arrestee sufficiently stated claim under § 1983;
`
`[3]
`
`[4] arrestee's complaint did not state a claim under § 1985;
`
`[5] police officers did not violate Fourth Amendment rights of
`arrestee by searching and arresting him after seeing his illegal
`switchblade in plain view; and
`
` © 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 2139-3, PageID.39457 Filed 05/18/21 Page 3 of 7
`Fox v. Michigan State Police Dept., 173 Fed.Appx. 372 (2006)
`2006 Fed.App. 0142N
`
`[4]
`
`[5]
`
`[6]
`
`his vehicle and arrested him, which he alleged
`was in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.
`U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4;
`42 U.S.C.A. §
`1983.
`
`8 Cases that cite this headnote
`
`Conspiracy
`Civil rights conspiracies
`Arrestee's complaint did not state a claim under
`§ 1985, which prohibits various conspiracies,
`absent any allegations, conclusory or otherwise,
`of either a conspiracy or any class-based
`motivation with regard to defendants' actions.
`42 U.S.C.A. § 1985.
`
`41 Cases that cite this headnote
`
`Personal knowledge or observation
`
`Arrest
`in general
`Police officers did not violate Fourth
`Amendment rights of arrestee, who had allegedly
`violated personal protection order when he went
`to see his children, and had an illegal switchblade
`on his side in plain view. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend.
`4;
`42 U.S.C.A. § 1983.
`
`3 Cases that cite this headnote
`
`Criminal Law
`Matters admitted
`Arrestee was estopped from arguing that his
`arrest was made without probable cause after he
`pled guilty to the resulting offenses of possession
`of switchblade and domestic violence; under
`Michigan law, a conviction, unless procured by
`fraud or unfair means, is conclusive evidence of
`probable cause. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4;
`42
`U.S.C.A. § 1983.
`
`12 Cases that cite this headnote
`
`*373 On Appeal from the United States District Court for
`the Western District of Michigan.
`
`Attorneys and Law Firms
`
`Jamie Fox, Oregon, OH, pro se.
`
`Margaret A. Nelson, Michigan Department of Attorney
`General Public Employment & Elections Division, Lansing,
`MI, for Defendant–Appellee.
`
`Before: BOGGS, Chief Judge; GIBBONS, Circuit Judge; and
`ROSE, District Judge. *
`
`Opinion
`
`JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge.
`
`**1 [1]
` Plaintiff-appellant Jamie Fox brought suit under
`42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and
`1985, alleging that his Fourth
`Amendment rights were violated when Michigan State Police
`officers searched and arrested Fox and searched his vehicle.
`Fox also brought selective prosecution and several state law
`claims. The United States District Court for the Western
`District of Michigan dismissed each of Fox's claims and,
`alternatively, granted summary judgment to the defendant
`police officers with regard to his
`§ 1983 claim. For the
`following reasons, we affirm the district court's decision.
`
`I.
`
`On July 3, 2001, Michigan State Police officers went to Fox's
`home, in response to an alleged violation of a Michigan state
`court personal protection order. Lynn Fox, the appellant's
`wife, had obtained the *374 personal protection order
`against Fox in favor of herself and her children following
`an alleged incident of domestic assault. Upon arrival at the
`Fox home, officers Nate McGuire and Mark Hagerman found
`Jamie Fox outside the home. McGuire and Hagerman noticed
`that Fox was carrying a knife on his side. They searched
`Fox and his vehicle and arrested Fox. Fox was charged with
`one count each of domestic violence, absconding, possession
`of a mechanical contrivance (switchblade), possession of an
`unregistered firearm, and carrying a concealed weapon. Fox
`reached a plea agreement with the prosecutor in which he
`agreed to plead guilty to domestic violence and possession of
`a mechanical contrivance (switchblade) in exchange for the
`dismissal of all other charges. Fox entered his guilty plea on
`August 22, 2001.
`
` © 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 2139-3, PageID.39458 Filed 05/18/21 Page 4 of 7
`Fox v. Michigan State Police Dept., 173 Fed.Appx. 372 (2006)
`2006 Fed.App. 0142N
`
`Fox filed a complaint on July 2, 2003, against the Michigan
`State Police and three John and Jane Doe defendants,
`asserting claims under
`42 U.S.C. §§ 1983,
`1985,
`and
`1988 based on alleged violations of the Fourth
`Amendment, as well as a selective prosecution claim and
`several state law claims. Fox later filed an amended complaint
`that named the Michigan State Police and officers Ruth
`McGehee, Nate McGuire, and Mark Hagerman as defendants.
`The Michigan State Police moved to dismiss the claims
`asserted against it, and the district court granted its motion on
`February 18, 2004.
`
`Defendants McGehee, McGuire, and Hagerman then moved
`to dismiss the claims asserted against them or, alternatively,
`for summary judgment (“defendants' dispositive motion”).
`Officers McGehee, McGuire, and Hagerman attached as
`exhibits to their motion uncertified copies of court records
`and the police reports. Fox moved to strike these exhibits
`under
`Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f) when he responded to defendants'
`dispositive motion. Fox attached a personal affidavit to his
`response. The defendants filed an answer to Fox's motion to
`strike, claiming that the exhibits were properly authenticated
`under Fed.R.Evid. 901(b)(7) and that Fox's own admissions
`in his response and accompanying affidavit demonstrated the
`documents' authenticity.
`
`On August 3, 2004, the district court ruled on each of these
`motions. The district court denied Fox's motion to strike on
`the basis that defendants' exhibits were not pleadings within
`the meaning of
`Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f) and, therefore, could not
`be the subject of a motion to strike. Although the motion to
`strike was denied, the district court stated that it would not
`consider defendants' unauthenticated exhibits in reaching its
`decision, because to do so over plaintiff's objection would
`be error. Turning to the defendants' motion to dismiss, the
`district court held that Fox's amended complaint failed to state
`a claim against McGehee because it merely named McGehee
`in the caption but did not assert any facts supporting a cause
`of action against her. With regard to defendants McGuire and
`Hagerman, the district court dismissed Fox's
`§ 1983 and
`§ 1985 claims because Fox failed to allege facts that would
`established a violation of Fox's Fourth Amendment rights.
`The district court dismissed Fox's
`§ 1988 claim because
`§ 1988 does not create an independent cause of action.
`Fox's selective prosecution claim was dismissed for his failure
`to allege specific facts. The district court also dismissed Fox's
`
`state law claims because they were barred by Michigan's
`statute of limitations. Finally, the district court considered the
`defendants' motion for summary judgment and granted it. Fox
`filed a timely notice of appeal.
`
`II.
`
`**2 On appeal, Fox challenges the denial of his motion
`to strike and the disposition of *375 his
`§§ 1983 and
`1985 claims asserted against defendants McGuire and
`Hagerman. Fox does not challenge the dismissal of those
`claims asserted against defendants Michigan State Police and
`McGehee, the dismissal of his state law claims as barred by
`the statute of limitations, or the dismissal of his selective
`prosecution claim.
`
`Fox first challenges the denial of his motion to strike. We
`review a decision to grant or deny a motion to strike for
`an abuse of discretion.
`Seay v. Tennessee Valley Auth.,
`339 F.3d 454, 480 (6th Cir.2003). The district court correctly
`decided not to strike the exhibits attached to defendants'
`dispositive motion. Under
`Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f), a court
`may strike only material that is contained in the pleadings.
`Fed.R.Civ.P. 7(a) defines pleadings as “a complaint and an
`answer; a reply to a counterclaim denominated as such; an
`answer to a cross-claim, if the answer contains a cross-claim;
`a third-party complaint, if a person who was not an original
`party is summoned under the provisions of Rule 14; and
`a third-party answer, if a third-party complaint is served.”
`Exhibits attached to a dispositive motion are not “pleadings”
`within the meaning of Fed.R.Civ.P. 7(a) and are therefore not
`subject to a motion to strike under Rule 12(f).
`
`[2]
` The district court did not to rely on the documents,
`however, when deciding defendants' dispositive motion. This
`decision was appropriate because the court records and police
`reports, which were neither sworn nor certified, were not
`properly authenticated and were therefore inadmissible in
`evidence. As a result, the documents failed to meet the
`requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e). This decision took into
`account Fox's pro se status and the fact that he alluded to Rule
`56(e) in his motion. In essence, the district court gave Fox the
`benefit of his “motion to strike” by specifically declining to
`consider these materials under Rule 56(e). Fox nevertheless
`argues on appeal that it was error for the district court to
`leave the unauthenticated documents in the record prior to the
`
` © 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 2139-3, PageID.39459 Filed 05/18/21 Page 5 of 7
`Fox v. Michigan State Police Dept., 173 Fed.Appx. 372 (2006)
`2006 Fed.App. 0142N
`
`district court's ruling on defendants' dispositive motion. Fox
`cites no case in support of this proposition. The Federal Rules
`of Civil Procedure do not require the district court to remove
`documents other than pleadings from the record in a case.
`The district court appropriately dealt with the documents on
`grounds of admissibility and resolved the issue correctly.
`
`We turn next to the district court's grant of the defendants'
`motion to dismiss Fox's claims that were based on
`§§ 1983
`and
`1985. The district court concluded that Fox's “bare
`allegation of the legal conclusion that he was arrested without
`probable cause” does not suffice to support a viable Fourth
`Amendment claim.
`
`This court reviews a district court's dismissal pursuant to
`Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) de novo. Roberson v. Tennessee,
`399 F.3d 792, 794 (6th Cir.2005). A complaint may be
`dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) only if it is clear that
`no relief can be granted under any set of facts that could
`be proven consistent with the allegations of the complaint.
`Montgomery v. Huntington Bank, 346 F.3d 693, 698 (6th
`Cir.2003);
`Ludwig v. Bd. of Trustees of Ferris St. Univ.,
`123 F.3d 404, 408 (6th Cir.1997). Although a complaint need
`only provide “ ‘fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and
`the grounds upon which it rests,’ ” Lawler v. Marshall, 898
`F.2d 1196, 1199 (6th Cir.1990) (quoting Conley v. Gibson,
`355 U.S. 41, 47, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)), the
`district court does not need to accept as true “legal conclusions
`or unwarranted factual inferences.” Morgan v. Church's
`Fried Chicken, 829 F.2d 10, 12 (6th Cir.1987). “In practice,
`a ... complaint must contain either direct or inferential
`allegations respecting all the material *376 elements to
`sustain a recovery under some viable legal theory.”
`In re
`DeLorean Motor Co., 991 F.2d 1236, 1240 (6th Cir.1993)
`(internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis
`and alterations in original). While complaints of pro se
`litigants are held to a less stringent standard than licensed
`attorneys, this leniency does not abrogate those basic pleading
`requirements that ensure that the court does “not have to guess
`at the nature of the claim asserted.” Wells v. Brown, 891
`F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir.1989).
`
`**3 [3]
`§ 1983, a plaintiff must
` To state a claim under
`allege that he was deprived by a person acting under the
`color of state law of a right secured by the Constitution or
`
`Barrett v. Steubenville City Schools, 388
`a federal statute.
`F.3d 967, 971 (6th Cir.2004). Excluding legal conclusions,
`the following factual allegations can be culled from Fox's
`amended complaint: Fox was outside his home in Hillsdale
`County; Fox was there to see his children; a personal
`protection order was in effect, but Fox was outside of the
`restricted area; Michigan State Police officers McGuire and
`Hagerman responded to an allegation that there had been
`a violation of the personal protection order; the officers
`arrived and searched Fox and his vehicle and arrested Fox.
`Fox's complaint makes clear that his claim is based upon a
`violation of the Fourth Amendment. We do not find anything
`in Fox's complaint that disposes of his claim that he was at all
`times acting in accordance with the law but was nevertheless
`unreasonably searched and arrested by the defendants. In
`short, it is not clear beyond doubt that Fox, a pro se litigant,
`could not prove a Fourth Amendment violation in accordance
`with the allegations in his complaint. Accordingly, Fox's
`complaint did not fail to state a claim under
`§ 1983.
`
`[4]
` We agree with the district court's decision, however, to
`dismiss those claims asserted under
`§ 1985. Fox has never
`articulated under which provision of
`§ 1985 he purses
`relief, but his complaint fails to state a claim under any of its
`provisions.
`Section 1985(1), which prohibits conspiracies
`to interfere with federal officers in the performance of their
`duties, and the first clause of
`§ 1985(2), which prohibits
`conspiracies to influence parties, witness, or jurors in federal
`court proceedings, are not applicable to this case. Under
`both the second clause of
`§ 1985(2), which prohibits
`conspiracies to interfere with due process in state courts with
`the intent to deprive persons of their equal protection rights,
`and
`§ 1985(3), which prohibits conspiracies to deprive
`persons of their equal protection rights, a plaintiff must allege
`that there was “some racial, or perhaps otherwise class-based,
`invidiously discriminatory animus behind the conspirators'
`action.”
`Kush v. Rutledge, 460 U.S. 719, 726, 103 S.Ct.
`1483, 75 L.Ed.2d 413 (1983); see also
`Collyer v.
`Darling, 98 F.3d 211, 233 (6th Cir.1996). Fox's complaint
`does not state a claim under
`§ 1985 because there are no
`allegations, conclusory or otherwise, of either a conspiracy
`or any class-based motivation with regard to defendants'
`actions. See
`Farhat v. Jopke, 370 F.3d 580, 599 (6th
`Cir.2004) (“Claims of [civil] conspiracy must be pled with
`
` © 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 2139-3, PageID.39460 Filed 05/18/21 Page 6 of 7
`Fox v. Michigan State Police Dept., 173 Fed.Appx. 372 (2006)
`2006 Fed.App. 0142N
`
`some specificity: vague and conclusory allegations that are
`unsupported by material facts are not sufficient to state a
`§
`1983 claim.”).
`
`[5]
` Having concluded that Fox's complaint stated a claim
`only under
`§ 1983 and only with regard to defendants
`McGuire and Hagerman, we turn to the award of summary
`judgment for those defendants. Although the district court
`refused to consider the exhibits attached to defendants'
`dispositive motion, it nevertheless *377 awarded summary
`judgment to defendants McGuire and Hagerman based on
`its conclusion that the affidavits that Fox filed in response
`to defendants' dispositive motion made it clear that there
`were no genuine issues of material fact and that defendants
`were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Specifically,
`Fox admits in his affidavits that the defendants, during their
`investigation of the incident, observed a knife belted to Fox's
`right side. Fox's affidavits also make clear that, as a result
`of the incident, Fox was charged with and pled guilty to
`possession of a switchblade and domestic violence.
`
`**4 This court reviews a district court's decision to grant
`summary judgment de novo. See
`Terry Barr Sales Agency,
`Inc. v. All–Lock Co., Inc., 96 F.3d 174, 178 (6th Cir.1996).
`Summary judgment is appropriate where the pleadings,
`depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on
`file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is
`no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving
`party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P.
`56(c). We view the facts and any inferences reasonably drawn
`from them in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.
`Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475
`U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986).
`
`that officers McGuire and
`Fox's affidavit establishes
`Hagerman could see the knife on Fox's belt. “It has been long
`settled that objects falling in the plain view of an officer who
`has a right to be in the position to have that view are subject to
`seizure....” Harris v. United States, 390 U.S. 234, 236, 88
`S.Ct. 992, 19 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1968). Because the officers could
`see the illegal switchblade in plain view, they had probable
`cause to search and arrest Fox. With regard to Fox's claim that
`his vehicle was unlawfully searched, we agree with the district
`court that any search of Fox's vehicle was reasonable. Taking
`all evidence in the light most favorable to Fox, the vehicle
`search was either a search incident to a lawful arrest, see
`New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 460, 101 S.Ct. 2860, 69
`
`L.Ed.2d 768 (1981), or a necessary protective search in light
`of the officers' discovery that Fox possessed a switchblade,
`see Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1049–50, 103 S.Ct.
`3469, 77 L.Ed.2d 1201 (1983). We therefore conclude that,
`based on the evidence in Fox's affidavit, the district court's
`decision to grant summary judgment was correct.
`
`In addition, Fox's claim that he was unlawfully searched was
`barred by
`Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct.
`2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). Despite the district court's
`reliance on Heck, Fox does not mention Heck in his appellate
`briefs. Any argument that the district court incorrectly relied
`on Heck is therefore abandoned. Dixon v. Ashcroft, 392
`F.3d 212, 217 (6th Cir.2004); Robinson v. Jones, 142 F.3d
`905, 906 (6th Cir.1998). Even if we reviewed the district
`court's ruling based on Heck, however, we would conclude
`that Heck bars Fox's claim that he was unlawfully searched.
`In Heck, the Supreme Court held that “in order to recover
`damages for allegedly unconstitutional ... harm caused by
`actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or
`sentence invalid, a
`§ 1983 plaintiff must prove that the
`conviction or sentence has been reversed....” Heck, 512
`U.S. at 486–87, 114 S.Ct. 2364. In this case, a finding in
`favor of Fox on his claim that defendants unlawfully searched
`his person would “necessarily imply the invalidity of his
`conviction” for possession of a switchblade. Heck, 512
`U.S. at 487, 114 S.Ct. 2364. The search of Fox yielded the
`switchblade, which became the subject of a criminal charge
` *378 Brindley v. Best,
`of which Fox was convicted. Cf.
`192 F.3d 525, 530–31 (6th Cir.1999) (finding that items that
`a
`§ 1983 plaintiff claimed were unlawfully seized “were
`never the subject of criminal charges” filed against plaintiff
`and therefore the “alleged unlawful seizures ... would not
`invalidate the plaintiffs' convictions.”);
`Schilling v. White,
`58 F.3d 1081, 1086 (6th Cir.1995) (“The language of Heck
`plainly refutes the argument that Fourth Amendment claims
`are exempted from the requirement that a conviction must
`be set aside as a precondition for this type of
`§ 1983
`suit.”). Fox may not maintain a claim, therefore, based on the
`search of his person until his conviction for possession of a
`switchblade has been invalidated.
`
`**5 [6]
` Fox is estopped, moreover, from arguing that his
`arrest was made without probable cause because he pled
`guilty to the resulting offenses. See Walker v. Schaeffer,
`
` © 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 2139-3, PageID.39461 Filed 05/18/21 Page 7 of 7
`Fox v. Michigan State Police Dept., 173 Fed.Appx. 372 (2006)
`2006 Fed.App. 0142N
`
`854 F.2d 138, 142–43 (6th Cir.1988) (holding that the
`defendants' guilty pleas bar them from later alleging that
`police lacked probable cause to detain them); Hemphill v.
`Haglund, 45 Fed.Appx. 519, 520 (6th Cir.2002) (holding
`that a defendant's guilty plea to a charge that results from
`a search bars the defendant from later alleging that police
`lacked probable cause to conduct the search). In general, a
`state court judgment is given the same preclusive effect that
`it receives under the law of the state in which it was rendered.
`Migra v. Warren City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 465 U.S. 75,
`81, 104 S.Ct. 892, 79 L.Ed.2d 56 (1984). In Michigan, it is
`“well established that a conviction, unless procured by fraud
`or unfair means, is conclusive evidence of probable cause.”
`Blase v. Appicelli, 195 Mich.App. 174, 489 N.W.2d 129, 131
`(1992) (citing Moore v. Michigan Nat'l Bank, 368 Mich. 71,
`117 N.W.2d 105, 106 (1962);
`Piechowiak v. Bissell, 305
`Mich. 486, 9 N.W.2d 685, 689 (1943)). We must therefore
`
`acknowledge that defendants McGuire and Hagerman had
`probable cause to search and arrest Fox for possession of a
`switchblade and domestic violence. Any claim based on his
`arrest is therefore barred by estoppel. As with the Heck ruling,
`Fox offers no argument that the district court incorrectly
`barred his claims based on estoppel.
`
`III.
`
`The district court's decision to dismiss or grant summary
`judgment on all of the claims in Fox's amended complaint is
`affirmed.
`
`All Citations
`
`173 Fed.Appx. 372, 2006 WL 456008, 2006 Fed.App. 0142N
`
`Footnotes
`
`*
`
`The Honorable Thomas M. Rose, United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, sitting by
`designation.
`
`End of Document
`
`© 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
`
` © 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
`
`6
`
`