Opinion · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

BIRKHOLZ v. MIAL, 312 Fed.Appx. 752 (6th Cir. 2009)

312 Fed.Appx. 752

Type
Opinion
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
2009-02-03
Topic
general

BIRKHOLZ v. MIAL, 312 Fed.Appx. 752 (6th Cir. 2009) Ted BIRKHOLZ, Personal Representative of the Estate of Helen Alton;Martha Pridemore; Cindy Schwartz-kopf, Personal Representative of theEstate of Jacob Schwartzkopf, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Naomi MIAL,Defendant, County of Macomb; Macomb County Department of Senior CitizensServices; Mary Nelson-Pulice, Defendants-Appellees. Nos. 08-1239, 08-1269.United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. February 3, 2009. [EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed BIRKHOLZ v. MIAL, 312 Fed.Appx. 752 (6th Cir. 2009). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

BIRKHOLZ v. MIAL,312 Fed.Appx. 752(6th Cir. 2009)
Ted BIRKHOLZ, Personal Representative of the Estate of Helen Alton;
Martha Pridemore; Cindy Schwartz-kopf, Personal Representative of the
Estate of Jacob Schwartzkopf, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Naomi MIAL,
Defendant, County of Macomb; Macomb County Department of Senior Citizens
Services; Mary Nelson-Pulice, Defendants-Appellees.
Nos. 08-1239, 08-1269.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
February 3, 2009.
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.
BEFORE: NORMS, BATCHELDER, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.
ROGERS, Circuit Judge.
Plaintiffs, representing the interests of several estates, appeal the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants Macomb County, Macomb County Department of Senior Citizen Services, Naomi Mial, and Mary Nelson-Pulice. Plaintiffs brought this suit pursuant to42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that defendants' misappropriation of funds from plaintiffs' estates amounted to a violation of their substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. After reviewing the record, the parties' briefs, and the applicable law, and hearing oral argument, this court determines that no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a panel opinion and affirms the district court's decision for the reasons stated in part III.C of Judge Rosen's January 24, 2008, opinion and order.See Kawecki ex rel. Marlowe v. County ofMacomb, Nos. 04-70907, 05-73498, 2008 WL 205241, at *23 (E.D.Mich. Jan.24, 2008). Plaintiff cites no authority for the award of damages on a substantive due process theory for governmental action that neither threatens nor causes physical injury. In light of plaintiffs' failure to state a constitutional claim to support their § 1983 action, it is not necessary to address the district court's alternative holding that the plaintiffs' claims were barred by the collateral estoppel effect of the state probate court proceedings. The judgment of the district court is therefore affirmed.
  1. [EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] ↩