Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). A. Fourth Amendment Malicious Prosecution Claim against Popp Popp argues he should have been granted qualified immunity on the malicious prosecution claim because there was no Fourth Amendment violation. We agree, because Popp did not make the decision to charge Kinkus, and there is no proof in the record that Kinkus presented false information to the prosecutor. This Court has held that a police officer cannot be liable for Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution when he did not make the decision to bring charges, as long as the information he submitted to the prosecutor is truthful. See Skousen v. Brighton High Sch., 305 F.3d 520, 529 (6th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); see also McKinley v. City of Mansfield, 404 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the defendant could not be liable for malicious prosecution where the plaintiff presented no evidence suggesting that defendants conspired with influenced or even participated in the prosecutors decision to bring charges against him (B) holding that a police officer cannot be held liable for malicious prosecution when he did not make the decision to prosecute the plaintiff (C) holding that the statute applies also to malicious prosecution actions (D) holding that malicious prosecution claim accrues when underlying prosecution is terminated (E) holding the same for malicious prosecution
Output (English): holding that the defendant could not be liable for malicious prosecution where the plaintiff presented no evidence suggesting that defendants conspired with influenced or even participated in the prosecutors decision to bring charges against him