Scott Gerber v. Stephen Veltri, 702 F. App'x 423

Gerber, ONU law professor, sued Veltri for assault and battery after Veltri, as interim dean, touched Gerber's shoulder in the hallway; district court found no assault or battery.
October 8, 2012 incident: Veltri placed his left hand on Gerber's shoulder and directed him toward a lounge; Gerber told him to take his hands off; Veltri contends he only touched the shoulder and intended no harm.
Veltri and Ward testified about the brief contact; Ward observed Veltri's demeanor and Gerber's reaction; both denied Gerber was physically harmed at the time.
Security officer Laubis examined Gerber, found no bruising, but concluded Veltri had assaulted him; she nonetheless recommended reporting to campus hotline or police.
Gerber sought emotional distress treatment after the incident; Wott diagnosed anxiety/depression aggravated by the event, but based on Gerber's own description; prior treatment for stress existed (O’Brien treated 2007–2009).
Physicians Muha and Anderson evaluated the shoulder injury years later; both agreed the rotator cuff issue predated Veltri's touch and could not be caused by the brief contact, though one noted possible transient exacerbation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the continuance denial violated due process	Gerber argues denial denied right to counsel and fair trial.	Court acts within broad discretion; delay not inherently due process violation.	No reversible error; continuance denial was within discretion.
Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying recusal motions	Judge Zouhary biased by rulings; recusal warranted.	No evident bias on record; decisions were merits-based.	No abuse of discretion; no clear bias shown.
Whether the district court erred in admitting/considering evidence about Veltri's conduct years earlier	Evidence of prior interactions biased the outcome.	Such evidence offset Gerber's expansive claims and was probative.	No reversible error; evidence admissible to contextualize credibility.
Whether Veltri assaulted Gerber as a matter of law	Veltri intended to place Gerber in fear and/or cause offensive contact.	No intent to cause fear; contact not shown to be offensive or harmful.	Not assault; district court's credibility finding supported by record.
Whether Veltri battered Gerber under Ohio law	Contact could be offensive or cause harm; single or dual intent applies.	Record lacked harmful or offensive contact; injuries not established.	Not battered; contact not shown to be offensive to a reasonable person or to cause harm.

Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 F.2d 575 (Supreme Court-year not specified in text) (continuance denial not always due process violation; depends on circumstances)
Anderson v. Sheppard, 856 F.2d 741 (6th Cir. 1988) (reconsideration of continuance and fairness in a complex case)
Tarver v. Calex Corp., 708 N.E.2d 1041 (Ohio Ct. App. 1998) (dual vs single intent in Ohio battery analysis)
Love v. City of Port Clinton, 524 N.E.2d 166 (Ohio 1988) (offensive contact requires contact offensive to a reasonable sense of personal dignity)
Dixon v. Fed. Express Corp., 33 F. App’x 157 (6th Cir. 2002) (reaffirmations on due process and fairness in handling disputes)
Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564 (U.S. Supreme Court 1985) (credibility determinations and deference to trial court findings in due process context)