Thomas Geig v. City of Macedonia, Ohio

1During the pendency of this appeal, former Macedonia Mayor Kornuc was succeeded by
current Macedonia Mayor Don Kuchta, who was properly substituted as a party.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 04a0033n.06
Filed: October 20, 2004
No. 03-4058
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
THOMAS GEIG,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CITY OF MACEDONIA, OHIO; DAVID ENGLE,
in his official capacity as Magistrate of the City of
Macedonia Mayor’s Court; BRYAN VINCE, in his
official as a Law Enforcement Officer and Patrolman
for the City of Macedonia, and in his individual
capacity, DON KUCHTA, in his official capacity of
Mayor of Macedonia
Defendants-Appellees.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
C O U R T F O R T H E
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
OHIO
O P I N I O N
BEFORE: MARTIN, COLE, and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM. Plaintiff-Appellant Thomas Geig appeals from the July 10, 2003 order of
the district court granting Defendants-Appellees’ motions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and
dismissing his complaint, which alleged violations of Ohio Revised Code § 1905.05 and
constitutional violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 stemming from his prosecution in a mayor’s
court for violating a municipal traffic law. In his complaint, Geig alleged that: (1) Defendant
Kornuc 1, the Mayor of Macedonia, Ohio, is prohibited by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 03-4058
Geig v. City of Macedonia, et al.
- 2 -
Amendment from appointing any person as a magistrate; (2) Defendant Engle, a Magistrate of the
City of Macedonia’s Mayor’s Court, was not a neutral and detached judicial officer; and (3)
Defendant Vince, a law enforcement officer for the City of Macedonia, seized Geig without probable
cause. Geig sought a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Kornuc from appointing anyone
to the position of magistrate, compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees.
We review a district court’s dismissal of a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 12(b)(6) de novo.
Block v. Ribar, 156 F.3d 673, 677 (6th Cir. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the parties’
submissions, and, for substantially the same reasons set forth in the district court’s order dated July
10, 2003, we AFFIRM the judgment dismissing Geig’s complaint.

-- 2 of 2 --