LUTFI SAID SAALIM v. WALMART, INC.; WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP; LUCAS COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, on behalf of Lucas County, Ohio; SHERIFF MICHAEL J. NAVARRE, in his official capacity as Lucas County Sheriff; DEPUTY SHERIFFS JEFFREY M. BRETZLOFF and JUSTYN MCNETT, in their individual and official capacities - Articles

All Content

LUTFI SAID SAALIM v. WALMART, INC.; WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP; LUCAS COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, on behalf of Lucas County, Ohio; SHERIFF MICHAEL J. NAVARRE, in his official capacity as Lucas County Sheriff; DEPUTY SHERIFFS JEFFREY M. BRETZLOFF and JUSTYN MCNETT, in their individual and official capacities

Posted by: Karen Belcher on Apr 3, 2024

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Thomas J. Walsh II, KISLING NESTICO & REDICK, LLC, Akron, Ohio, for Appellant.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: Taylor C. Knight, REMINGER CO., L.P.A., Toledo, Ohio, for Walmart Appellees.

Attorneys 3: ARGUED: Kevin A. Pituch, LUCAS COUNTY PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE, Toledo, Ohio, for Lucas County Appellees.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Thomas J. Walsh II, KISLING NESTICO & REDICK, LLC, Akron, Ohio, Hassanayn M. Joseph, JOSEPH LAW, LTD., Toledo, Ohio, for Appellant.

Attorneys 5: ON BRIEF: Taylor C. Knight, Hannah R. Duschl, REMINGER CO., L.P.A., Toledo, Ohio, for Walmart Appellees.

Attorneys 6: ON BRIEF: Kevin A. Pituch, Denny A. Lyle, Andrew K. Ranazzi, LUCAS COUNTY PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE, Toledo, Ohio, for Lucas County Appellees.

Judge(s): BATCHELDER, CLAY, and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Toledo

CLAY, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Lufti Said Saalim appeals the district court’s two orders granting judgment on the pleadings in favor of Defendants Jeffrey Bretzloff, Justyn McNett, Michael Navarre, and the Lucas County Board of Commissioners, and sua sponte dismissing Defendants Walmart, Inc. and Wal-Mart Stores, East, LP. Saalim alleged violations of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and also asserted various violations of Ohio state law. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM in part, REVERSE in part, and REMAND the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Attachments: