Opinion

Arnold R. Duncan v. Cindy Pope

  • 805 F.2d 1034
  • 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 31980
  • 1986 WL 18108
Court
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Filed
Oct 8, 1986
Status
Unpublished
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 16.2%

The opinion

805 F.2d 1034

Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.

Arnold R. DUNCAN, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

Cindy POPE, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 85-5505.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Oct. 8, 1986.

Before MERRITT, GUY and NORRIS, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

1

This Tennessee state prisoner appeals from a district court judgment dismissing his suit filed under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 for failure to state a violation of his constitutional rights.

2

Seeking monetary relief, plaintiff sued a probation officer claiming that she had defamed the plaintiff by testifying against the plaintiff in a criminal proceeding and telling a news reporter afterwards that he had been involved in criminal activity since he was twelve years old and had a lengthy criminal record.

3

Upon review of the cause in light of the arguments made by the parties in their respective appellate briefs, this Court concludes that the district court properly dismissed plaintiff's complaint for the reasons stated by it. A claim for defamation is clearly not cognizable under the Federal Constitution and is, therefore, not actionable under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 . Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (1976); Naegele Outdoor Advertising Co. of Louisville v. Moulton, 773 F.2d 692 (6th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 106 S.Ct. 1639 (1986). To the extent the defendants' statements were made in her capacity as a witness in a court proceeding, she also enjoys absolute immunity from a suit for damages. Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983).

4

For these reasons, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not necessary in this appeal. Rule 35(a), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. The district court's judgment is, accordingly, affirmed pursuant to Rule 9(d)(3), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.