Mark Cleary v. County of Macomb, 409 F. App'x 890

Cleary, wrongfully convicted in Michigan for sexual assault against his daughter, spent 16 years in prison before a new-trial motion; charges were dismissed before the second trial and he filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against investigators, prosecutors, and institutions involved in the state investigation; district court granted some defendants qualified immunity and later granted summary judgment to Lamb and Macomb County; Cleary appeals arguing four sets of errors.
Plaintiff alleged Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations, including continued detention without probable cause and Brady violations, against Lamb, Wolf, Szlezyngier, Barone, Macomb County, and related entities.
Defendants Barone, Szlezyngier, Wolf were granted dismissal on qualified-immunity grounds; Lamb and Macomb County were granted summary judgment; Cleary challenged the district court’s handling of affidavits and discovery.
The appellate court AFFIRMED the district court’s orders.*
Cleary’s exoneration occurred after new statements by the alleged victim weakened the state case, but the federal action focuses on the investigators’ and prosecutors’ conduct rather than the original verdict.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Szlezyngier, Wolf, and Barone are entitled to qualified immunity.	Cleary contends they violated his rights by withholding exculpatory evidence.	These defendants did not act under color of law or violate clearly established rights.	Yes; district court’s dismissal on qualified immunity affirmed.
Whether Lamb and Macomb County were entitled to summary judgment.	Cleary argues withholding evidence violated his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.	Evidence did not establish a Brady violation or unconstitutional withholding.	Yes; summary judgment for Lamb and Macomb County affirmed.
Whether the district court properly excluded three affidavits in summary judgment briefing.	Affidavits raised material fact questions about Lamb’s conduct.	Affidavits were insufficient or cumulative and not material to the claims.	Yes; district court did not err in not considering them.
Whether Cleary should have been permitted more discovery.	Additional witnesses could have supplied pertinent facts.	Court did not abuse discretion; discovery broad but bounded.	Yes; no reversible error.

Gregory v. City of Louisville, 444 F.3d 725 (6th Cir. 2006) (restyling of continued detention as Fourth Amendment claim; Brady implications)
Moldowan v. City of Warren, 578 F.3d 351 (6th Cir. 2009) (Brady-like duties extend to police; separate from prosecution)
Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (materiality of suppressed evidence; due process)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (two-step qualified-immunity framework; discretion in prong order)
Harris v. Bornhorst, 513 F.3d 503 (6th Cir. 2008) (probable cause standard; no mere suspicion)
Fox v. DeSoto, 489 F.3d 227 (6th Cir. 2007) (probable cause standard in Fourth Amendment context)
Aldini v. Johnson, 609 F.3d 858 (6th Cir. 2010) (two-prong qualified-immunity analysis; clearly established rights)
Sykes v. Anderson, 625 F.3d 294 (6th Cir. 2010) (malicious prosecution distinctions and related claims)