Darrell D. Cross v. Tammie Brooks

*The Honorable Curtis L. Collier, district judge for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Tennessee, sitting by designation.
1The plaintiffs also sued various other defendants. The district court granted default judgment to the plaintiffs
as to one defendant and dismissed all claims against the others.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 05a0127n.06
Filed: February 16, 2005
File Name: 05a0127n.06
Filed: February 16, 2006
Case No. 03-3940
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
DARRELL D. CROSS, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
TAMMIE BROOKS, ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellees.
_______________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF OHIO
BEFORE: NELSON and BATCHELDER, Circuit Judges; COLLIER* District Judge.
ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs-Appellants Darrell and Janet Cross
appeal the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Franklin County Children
Services (“FCCS”) employees Michelle Culp, Patrick Brown, and Barbara Douglas in their
individual capacities on plaintiffs’ state law wrongful death claim arising out of the death of their
infant son, and their claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that these defendants deprived the plaintiffs’ son
of his life without due process of law. 1 The district court held that the statute of limitations bars the
Crosses’ § 1983 claim, and that even if it were not barred, the facts of that claim are

-- 1 of 2 --

2
indistinguishable from those in DeShaney v. Winnegabo County Dep’t. of Social Services, 489 U.S.
189 (1988) and the plaintiffs failed to present evidence to support their claim that the conduct of
these defendants falls within the state-created-danger exception to DeShaney. Further, the court held
that the plaintiffs failed to present evidence that the defendants acted wantonly or recklessly, and
therefore, under Ohio law, the defendants are immune from suit as employees of Franklin County.
We are mindful of the very sad facts of this case. But after carefully reviewing the record,
the applicable law, and the parties’ briefs, and having had the benefit of counsels’ arguments, we
are convinced that the district court did not err in its conclusions. As the district court’s opinion
carefully and correctly sets out the law governing the issues raised, and clearly articulates the
reasons underlying its decision, issuance of a full written opinion by this court would serve no useful
purpose. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the district court’s opinion, we AFFIRM.

-- 2 of 2 --