\u201cCases after Skousen have continued to apply its holding that filing a case report, taken alone, is insufficient to support a malicious-prosecution claim. See Miller v. Davis, 653 F. App’x 448, 455-56 (6th Cir. 2016) (holding that a detective’s report to prosecutors, even if \u2018fundamental to the commencement of the criminal proceedings\u2019 was by-itself insufficient for a malicious-prosecution claim); Kinkus v. Vill. of Yorkville, 289 F. App’x. 86, 91 (6th Cir. 2008) (holding that an officer’s actions of only filing a police report, signing a blank criminal complaint, and soliciting a written report from another officer was insufficient). We therefore hold that Berent is entitled to qualified immunity on Richards’s Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claim.\u201d Richards v. Cty. of Washtenaw, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 19896 (6th Cir. June 24, 2020).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Failure to interview all witnesses to an occurrence is at worst negligence and doesn\u2019t state a false arrest claim. Kingsley v. Lawrence County<\/a>, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 20701 (8th Cir, July 1, 2020).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" \u201cCases after Skousen have continued to apply its holding that filing a case report, taken alone, is insufficient to support a malicious-prosecution claim. See Miller v. Davis, 653 F. App’x 448, 455-56 (6th Cir. 2016) (holding that a detective’s report … Continue reading