996 F.2d 1218 (6th Cir. 1993), 92-1920, Wilson v. Daborski
|Citation:||996 F.2d 1218|
|Party Name:||Hardy Lamar WILSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joe DABORSKI, et al., Defendants-Appellees.|
|Case Date:||July 01, 1993|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit|
This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA6 Rule 28 and FI CTA6 IOP 206 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
E.D.Mich., No. 91-70985; Anna Diggs Taylor, J.
Before: MILBURN and BOGGS, Circuit Judges, and KRUPANSKY, Senior Circuit Judge.
Hardy Lamar Wilson, a Michigan state prisoner, appeals pro se from the judgment for defendants in this civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a).
Wilson sought monetary relief in this action against a number of employees of the Michigan Department of Corrections and Michigan State Industries. He complained that he had been falsely charged with disciplinary infractions, denied due process, denied access to the courts, and deprived of his prison job assignment. The magistrate judge recommended that defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted, and the district court adopted this recommendation. Both the district court and this court found that an appeal would not be in good faith, and denied Wilson pauper status on the appeal. He then paid the filing fee. In his appellate brief, Wilson argues that his substantive due process rights were violated by the defendants' filing of false charges against him in retaliation for his exercise of his right to petition the courts. He also points to two factual errors in the magistrate judge's report.
Upon review, it is concluded that defendants were properly granted summary judgment on the substantive due process claim because Wilson presented no evidence in support of his claim of retaliatory false charges. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986). The...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP