Hey, this is an English text. I want you to translate it into the Tunisian dialect. Please follow these steps:
1. Translate step by step and highlight differences between Tunisian dialect and Modern Standard Arabic.
2. Highlight sections you are confident translating into the Tunisian dialect.
Translate this text into the Tunisian dialect, focusing on capturing the essence of the language nuances:

856 F.2d 192 Unpublished DispositionNOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.Donald BENNAFIELD, Plaintiff-Appellant, Cross-Appellee,v.CITY OF CANTON POLICE DEPARTMENT; Chief of Police ThomasWyatt, in his Official Capacity,Defendants-Appellees, Cross-Appellants. Nos. 87-3919, 87-3959. United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. Sept. 1, 1988. Before KENNEDY and WELLFORD, Circuit Judges, and CELEBREZZE, Senior Circuit Judge. PER CURIAM. 1 Plaintiff-appellant/cross-appellee, Mr. Donald Bennafield, appeals from the District Court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants, the City of Canton, Ohio and the Canton Police Department, et. al. in his section 1983 claim arising out of defendants' release of a victim incident report accusing plaintiff of rape to the Cable News Network (CNN) which CNN subsequently aired on national cable television. Plaintiff argues that the impact of this release and broadcast upon his right to employment and penumbral First Amendment right of association were property and liberty interests sufficient to satisfy the "stigma-plus" test of Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (1976), and thus rose to the level of a constitutional violation cognizable under section 1983. Defendants, in their cross-appeal, argue inter alia that the District Court erred in its finding that the victim incident report was a non-public document under Ohio law. Defendants argue that under an Ohio statute they were required to disclose the incident report and thus their actions in making this public document available could not have violated plaintiff's constitutional rights. For the reasons stated below we affirm the judgment of the District Court because the plaintiff has not stated a cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. 2 Plaintiff was president and founder of Cobra Connection of America, Inc., an organization whose alleged goal was to locate missing children. In the summer of 1985 CNN was doing an expose of organizations throughout the country that purported to locate missing children. CNN's reporters, after receiving a tip, investigated Cobra Connection. In the course of their investigation CNN reporters travelled to Canton, Ohio and requested from the defendant, Canton Police Department, copies of all "incident reports" which listed plaintiff as a suspect.1 A clerk at the police department, pursuant to a city policy of releasing public records, provided the CNN reporters with an incident report filed by Ms. Cynthia M. Curry accusing plaintiff of the crime of rape. After receiving the report and interviewing plaintiff, CNN broadcasted a program three separate times on August 15, 1985 in which the Curry incident report was displayed and it was mentioned that plaintiff had been accused of, but not charged with, rape. 3 Plaintiff brought a 1983 action against defendants and CNN (CNN was later dismissed) alleging that defendants' actions in disclosing the Curry incident report to CNN caused plaintiff to be stigmatized and resulted in a chilling of his First Amendment right of association thus stating a claim under section 1983. In its