DANIEL THORNE, JR.; DANIEL THORNE, SR.; and SHARON THORNE v. JOHN LELLES and EDWARD KOROVIC, Steubenville Police Officers; CITY OF STEUBENVILLE

The Honorable Karl S. Forester, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District*
of Kentucky, sitting by designation.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 07a0693n.06
Filed: September 25, 2007
No. 06-4635
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
DANIEL THORNE, JR.; DANIEL THORNE, SR.;
and SHARON THORNE,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
JOHN LELLES and EDWARD KOROVIC,
Steubenville Police Officers; CITY OF
STEUBENVILLE,
Defendants-Appellants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
C O U R T F O R T H E
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
OHIO
M E M O R A N D U M
O P I N I O N
BEFORE: SUTTON and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges; and FORESTER, Senior District
Judge.*
PER CURIAM. In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, plaintiffs allege that Steubenville Police
Officers John Lelles and Edward Korovic violated their Fourth-Amendment rights when they seized
Daniel Thorne, Jr. in his family’s backyard, allegedly beat him with a Maglite flashlight, and arrested
him for underage drinking. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting that they were
protected from liability under the qualified-immunity doctrine. The district court denied the motion
in part, holding that there were genuine issues of material fact on the plaintiffs’ warrantless-entry,

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 06-4635
Thorne v. Lelles
- 2 -
excessive-force, and false-arrest claims. The defendants filed this interlocutory appeal on the
warrantless-entry and false-arrest claims.
We affirm in part and reverse in part. Having had the benefit of oral argument and having
carefully considered the record on appeal, we are not persuaded that a lengthy opinion is necessary.
As to the plaintiffs’ warrantless-entry claim against Officer Korovic, we AFFIRM for the reasons
set forth by the district court. Thorne v. Steubenville Police Officer, 463 F. Supp. 2d 760, 771-74,
775-77 (S.D. Ohio 2006). On the plaintiffs’ false-arrest claim against Officer Lelles, we likewise
AFFIRM for the reasons set forth by the district court. Id. at 774-77. As both parties acknowledged
during oral argument, however, there is no evidence in the record that Officer Lelles had any
involvement in the warrantless entry of the plaintiffs’ backyard, nor is there any evidence that Officer
Korovic participated in the arrest of Daniel Thorne, Jr. Accordingly, we REVERSE the judgment
of the district court on those two latter claims and REMAND the case for further proceedings.

-- 2 of 2 --