848 F.2d 191
Wanda Kay HEARNE; Michael Shaun Hearne, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
W. Diaz McKENZIE; Peggy Davis, Individually and as Social
Counselor of Anderson Co. Office of the Dept. of Human
Services; Steve Bolin, Individually and as Social Counselor
of Roane Co. Office of the Dept. of Human Services; James
Cornett, Individually and as Co. Director of Dept. of Human
Services of Anderson Co.; Steven C. Garrett, Individually
and as Asst. General Counsel Dept. of Human Services, State
of Tennessee; Audra L. Gibson, Individually and as
Investigator of Atty. Generals Office for State of Tenn.;
Jennings Meredith, Individually and as Judge of the Juvenile
Court of Anderson Co.; Allen Kidwell, Individually and as
Judge of the Chancery Court of Anderson Co.; William E.
Lantrip, Individually and as Attorney at Law, and as
guardian ad litem; Harry L. Lillard, Individually and as
Attorney at Law; Vivian L. Crandall, Individually and as
Attorney at Law; Anderson County (Tennessee); Department
of Human Services of Anderson County; Department of Human
Services for Roane County State of Tennessee, Defendants-Appellees.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
May 17, 1988.
NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.
Before KEITH and RYAN, Circuit Judges, and BENJAMIN E. GIBSON, District Judge.*
The plaintiffs appeal pro se from the district court's order granting summary judgment to the defendants in this civil rights case. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. The appeal has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. After an examination of the record and the briefs, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a).
The plaintiffs and the defendants are all parties involved in domestic relations proceedings in the Anderson County, Tennessee courts. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants based on various immunity, state action, vicarious liability, and statute of limitations grounds. We agree with the conclusions of the district court for the reasons stated in its orders of November 4, 1987 and December 17, 1987.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed under Rule 9(b)(5), Rules of the Sixth Circuit, because the issues are not substantial and do not require oral argument.
The Honorable Benjamin E. Gibson, U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Michigan, sitting by designation