noting that “at the summary judgment stage after the close of discovery, Plaintiff can no longer simply rely on the allegations in his complaint; rather, he must present affirmative evidence supporting his allegations in order to withstand summary judgment” (internal quotation marks omitted)
How later courts described this case
- noting that “at the summary judgment stage after the close of discovery, Plaintiff can no longer simply rely on the allegations in his complaint; rather, he must present affirmative evidence supporting his allegations in order to withstand summary judgment” (internal quotation marks omitted)
- finding that officer was entitled to summary judgment when plaintiff’s interrogatory answers did not state that officer was the one who arrested him and when officer testified that he had no personal involvement in the plaintiff’s arrest
- “[i]t is well-settled that to state a cognizable Section 1983 claim, the plaintiff must allege some personal involvement by [ | each of the named defendants”
- "It is well-settled that to state a cognizable Section 1983 claim, the plaintiff must allege some personal involvement by the each of the named defendants"
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
RYAN, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the judgment in this case because I agree that Bennett failed to come forward with any substantive evidence to establish that either Schroeder or Davis personally participated in the alleged deprivation of the plaintiffs constitutional rights. I concur fully with my colleague’s disposition of Bennett’s claim against the City of Cincinnati.