STEVE MODLA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
CHRYSLER CORPORATION ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the issues raised were unsubstantial and affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment.
Appellant sued Chrysler for wrongful discharge, libel, and conspiracy, and Detroit officials for failing to investigate complaints. The district court…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Failure To Investigate cases and more on FLexlaw
Our examination of the record in this appeal indicates clearly that the questions raised by appellant are so unsubstantial as not to need further argument.
Appellant’s complaint against Chrysler Corporation was that he was wrongfully discharged in 1943 and that ever since Chrysler has libelled him and has conspired with the other defendants. Appellant’s claim against the Detroit officials and police officers is that he made various complaints to them concerning offenses committed against him, which complaints they refused to investigate or consider. The District Court considered a motion for summary judgment on affidavits, briefs and a deposition of appellant consisting of 157 pages. The Court, in a written opinion, held that plaintiff’s action against Chrysler was barred by the Michigan statute of limitations; that the conclusory statements in his complaint conflicted with his oral testimony in the deposition and could not refute the positive statements in defendant’s affidavits; that there was no basis for a claim under the Civil Rights Act against the Michigan officers for failure to investigate the complaints made by plaintiff. We agree with the District Court that no genuine issue of fact was presented and that summary judgment was proper. The motion to affirm is therefore granted and the judgment of the District Court is hereby affirmed. Rule 8, Sixth Circuit.