CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
DESHAWN ANDERSON-SANTOS,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
KENT COUNTY, MICHIGAN,
Defendant,
DEREK LESHAN, in his individual and official capacity,
Defendant-Appellant. |
No. 23-1259 |
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids.
No. 1:21-cv-00453—Jane M. Beckering, District Judge.
Decided and Filed: February 29, 2024
Before: BATCHELDER, CLAY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
CLAY, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff DeShawn Anderson-Santos, a juvenile detainee at the
Kent County Juvenile Detention Center, suffered a head injury after being pushed by Defendant
Derek Leshan, a corrections officer. Anderson-Santos subsequently brought claims under 42
U.S.C. § 1983, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Eighth Amendment, against Defendant
Leshan. The district court denied Leshan’s summary judgment motion, finding that there was a
genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Leshan engaged in excessive force in violation of
the Eighth Amendment. Therefore, the district court held that Leshan was not entitled to
qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage. This interlocutory appeal followed. For the
reasons set forth below, we DISMISS this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. |
CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
CHARLES BRIAN O’NEILL,
Defendant-Appellant. |
No. 22-3793 |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Toledo.
No. 3:18-cr-00178-1—James R. Knepp II, District Judge.
Argued: October 19, 2023
Decided and Filed: February 29, 2024
Before: SUTTON, Chief Judge; CLAY and LARSEN, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
LARSEN, Circuit Judge. Charles O’Neill was charged with sexually exploiting a minor
and receiving or distributing child pornography. He pleaded guilty to both charges but reserved
the right to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress. For the following
reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. |
|