460 F. App'x 513
6th Cir.2012Background
- Plaintiff Michael Tranter, as Administrator for the Estate of Nolan Hunter, appeals a district court order granting Orick summary judgment on his § 1983 excessive-force claim and related state-law claims.
- The court reviews summary judgment de novo and affirmed the district court upon no error found.
- Tranter’s summary judgment evidence was hearsay and thus not considered by the district court.
- The district court held that the Dayton Police Department investigation report and witness statements were inadmissible hearsay for summary judgment and could not be considered.
- Tranter waived arguments that the investigation report was admissible as a public record under Rule 803(8) by failing to raise them below, and the court noted further that the report contained no factual findings and consisted of hearsay statements.
- The court declined to consider hearsay alternatives such as excited utterances and treated the investigation report as not admissible for summary judgment; the matter was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment evidence was properly excluded as hearsay | Tranter | Orick | Affirmed; district court correctly excluded hearsay evidence |
| Whether the investigation report could be admitted as a Rule 803(8) public-records exception | Tranter | Orick | Not admitted; report contains no factual findings and is hearsay |
| Whether witness statements could be considered as excited utterances or independently admissible | Tranter | Orick | Waived; issues not raised in initial briefs |
| Whether the district court could rely on inadmissible materials to defeat summary judgment | Tranter | Orick | Affirmed; admissible evidentiary standards control summary-judgment analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- Geiger v. Tower Auto., 579 F.3d 614 (6th Cir. 2009) (standard of de novo review for summary judgment)
- Alpert v. United States, 481 F.3d 404 (6th Cir. 2007) (hearsay evidence must be disregarded on summary judgment)
- Jacklyn v. Schering-Plough Healthcare Prods. Sales Corp., 176 F.3d 921 (6th Cir. 1999) (hearsay may not be considered on summary judgment)
- Bailey v. Floyd County Board of Education, 106 F.3d 135 (6th Cir. 1997) (evidence need not be admissible, but content must be admissible to survive summary judgment)
- LoCoco v. Med. Sav. Ins. Co., 530 F.3d 442 (6th Cir. 2008) (deals with admissibility and Rule 803 issues on summary judgment)
- Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106 (U.S. 1976) (appellate courts do not consider issues not raised below)
- Miller v. Field, 35 F.3d 1088 (6th Cir. 1994) (facts in Rule 803(8) must be factual findings to qualify)
- Mackey, 117 F.3d 24 (1st Cir. 1997) (hearsay statements in public records not admissible by Rule 803(8))
- Marks v. Newcourt Credit Grp., Inc., 342 F.3d 444 (6th Cir. 2003) (evidence admissibility standard for summary judgment)
- Alexander v. CareSource, 576 F.3d 551 (6th Cir. 2009) (noting admissibility requirements for Rule 56 evidence)