The Honor able Thomas M. Rose, United S tates Dist rict J udg e for the Southern District of * Ohio, sitti ng by

desig nation. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 08a0420n.06 F iled: July 15, 2008 No. 07-4212 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
MAGNUM TO WI

NG & RECOVERY et al., Pla int if fs -A pp e lla nts , v. CI TY OF TOL EDO e t al., De fe nd ants -A

pp e lle e s. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DI STRI CT OF OH O

Be fore : SUTTON and COOK , Circuit J udg es; and ROSE, District J udg e. *
PER C URI AM. I n 2003, the City of Toledo, Ohio, suspende d Mag num Towing and Recove ry fr o m the list of towers elig ible to perfor m police-orde red tows of inopera ble and
a ba nd on e d c ars wi thi n th e City , and , in 20 04 , the City re vo ke d M a g num T ow ing ’s tow ingpe rm it. Shortly there afte r, Mag num Towing and its owner, A nna Petre y , filed this § 1983 action ag ainst the Ci ty a n d tw o o f it s p o li c e o f

f ic e r s , a ll e g in g v io lati o n s o f f e d e r a l due pro c e s s an d

O h io la w . We
a ff ir m th e dis tr ic t c ourt ’s de c isi on g ra nti ngsu mma

ry jud g me nt t o th e City

and its of fi c e rs .No. 07-4212

Magnum Towing & Rec overy v. City of Toledo

- 2 -

I. The pa rties have a turbulent history with eac h other. Petre y

first sued the City

in 1998 after it withdrew the initial approva l of P et re y ’s ap p lication for a Class A safe ty

permit, which ha d allowed Ma g num Towing to perfor m private, thi rd-pa

rty and poli ce- order ed tows within the City ’s limit s. Concluding that feder al law pr eempted the local towing regulations, the district court g rante d Petrey relief

. P et r ey v. City of Toledo , No. 3: 98CV7188, 1999 U.S. Dist. L EXI S 21199, at *14 (N.D. O hio Oct. 10, 1999). We af firmed in part and reve rsed in par t, Petrey v. City of Toledo , 246 F.3d 548, 565 ( 6th Cir. 2001), after which the par ties entere d into a settlement ag ree ment. Petrey
re le a se d h e r c la ims a g a ins t th e City fo r $ 10 ,0 00 , a

nd the City g ra nte d Petrey

a sp e c ia l us e pe rm it, allowing Mag num Towing to continue i ts towing operation from a ne w location on South Avenue in Toledo, which wa s then under c onstruction.
Th e se ttl e me nt agr e e me nt, ho we ve r, did no t se ttl e e ve ry

thi ng . O n July

14 , 2 00 3, the City
on c e a g a in r e mov e d M a g num T ow ingfrom the tow inglis t be c a us e the ne w b uil din g fa ile d to
c on fo rm wi th t he mun ic ipa l c od e . T he no tic e of su sp e ns ion

ind ic a te d th a t Ma g num T ow ingwo uld be re turned to the towing list once it came into complianc e with the code
. Mag num Towing administratively appea led the suspension, maintaining th a t i t ha d complied wi th t he Pol ic e De pa

rtme nt’ s in str

uc tio ns in pr e pa

ri ngthe Sou th A ve nu e fa c ili ty and a sk ingthe City to allow it to rema in on the towing list pending the appe al. The City responde d that the suspension
wa s n on -a

pp e a la ble . A ft e r M a g num T ow ingfi le d a mot ion fo r a te mpo rary res tr a ini ngor de r i nNo. 07-4212

Magnum Towing & Rec overy v. City of Toledo

- 3 - which it reque s te d

th a t t h e Ci ty r e in s tate it

to th e to w in g li s t p e n d in g it s a p p e a l, th e Ci ty

r e tu r n ed Mag num Towing to the list.
On J une 4, 2004, the City ag ain re voked Mag num Towing ’s per mit, thi s time beca

use the company failed to ma

ke a timely licensing pay

ment to the City

(of $2,410) by

May 29, 2004. See T o l e d o , O h i o , M u n i c i p a l C o d e § 7 6 5
. 1 2 ( h )
. M a g n u m T o w i n g a p p e a l e d t h e C i t y’ s d e c i s i o nt h a td a y,
c la imi ngthat it

ma ile d th e pa

y me nt on May 27 , 200 4, and re qu e sti ngthat th e City

re tur n it s n a me to t he tow ing lis t pe nd ing a

pp e a l. On June 7, 20 04 , Ma g num To wi ng a g a in re qu e ste d th a t th e City place its name bac k on the towing list, after whic h the City ag ree d to put the company back on the repla ceme nt list if it submit ted a r eplac ement chec k. On J une 11, Mag num delivere d a re place ment
c he c k to the City , r e ne we d it s a ppe a l and re pe a te d it s r e qu e st t o b e re tur ne d to the tow inglis t pe nd ingthe a

pp e a l.
On July 9, the To wi ngB oa

rd of Re vie w c on c lud e d th a t th e Pol ic e Dep art ment pr op e rl y revoke d Mag num Towing ’s Class A permit due to the late pay ment. I n view o f the company ’s
su bmi ssi on of the re pla c e me nt c he c k, ho we ve r, the B oa rd dir e c te d the City to r e ins ta te the pe rm it
and the Pol ic e De pa

rtme nt t o r e tur

n th e c omp any

to t he tow inglis t.
On Oc tob e r 2 2, 20 04 , M a g num T ow ingfi le d th is l aws uit , a nd , o n Se pte mbe r 1 5, 20 05 , it filed its F irst A mended Complaint, which raised various fede ral and state law claims. Throug h two differ ent orde rs, one on May 9, 2006, the other on Aug ust 29, 2007, the district court re jected a ll of the company ’s claims as a matter of la

w.No. 07-4212

Magnum Towing & Rec overy v. City of Toledo

- 4 -

I I
. We g ive fresh revie w t o a dis trict court’s summary -judg ment decision, Cline v. BW XT Y -12, LLC , 521 F.3d 507, 509 ( 6th Cir. 2008), drawing all rea sonable inferenc es i n favor of the nonmoving party (Mag num Towing ) and sustaining a g rant of summary judgme nt if no g enuine issue of materia l fac t remains, see Alpe rt v. United States , 481 F.3d 404, 407 ( 6th Cir. 2007).
A. Mag num Towing first contends that the district c ourt err ed in su a s po nte g ranting the City ’s motion for summary

judgme nt on its fede ral due proce ss claims and that it was somehow blind-sided by the cour t’s decision. That is not the ca se. The City moved for summar

y judgme nt on all

of the company ’s claims that had survived the district court’s initial motion-to-dismi ss ruling. B y doing so, it put Mag num Towing on notice that, if it did not come for war d with evidence of mater ial fac t dis pu te s, the fe de ra l r

ule s emp ow e re d the dis tr ic t court to r e je c t a ll o f i ts c la ims . A nd that is e xac tly what the c ourt did. Mag num Towing further

argues that the district c ourt err ed in its application of the municipal sta nd ard of lia bil ity un de r § 19 83 —n ot, min d y ou , b e c a us e it a pp lie d th e wr on g sta

nd ard bu t be c a us e it a pp lie d a sta nd ard (t he ri g ht s tand ard ) t

hat ne ith e r p art

y re fe re nc e d in

its br ie f. A d istri c t c ourt , not surprisingly , does not commit rever sible err or when it fulfills its “oblig ation to apply the cor rec t leg al standard reg ardle ss of whether the parties corr ectly articulated it.” W il so n v. Oh io , 1 78 F. Ap p’ x 457 , 4 67 (6 th Cir . Apr . 25, 20 06 ). No r, c on tr ary to the c omp any ’s a dd iti on a l su g g e sti on , isNo. 07-4212

Magnum Towing & Rec overy v. City of Toledo

- 5 - a cour t, in issui ng a sum mary judgme nt (or any other) decision, permitted t o rely only on prec edent expli citly cited in the parties’ briefs. O therwise, a s this deeply acr imonious but shallowly briefe d dispute illust rate s, the law would be a mess.
B.
M a g n u m T o w i n g n e x t ar g u e s t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u rt e r r e d i nr e j e c t i n g t h e i n d i v i d

u a l

- c a p a c i t y, due proc ess claims ag ainst the officers. The company ’s t rain of r easoningseems to g o something like this: The T oledo Municipal Code g ave the company a rig ht to a towing lice nse and to be on the towing list; the City

violated its due proce ss rig hts by suspending it f rom the towing list i n 2003 and by revoking its Class A permit in 2004; the officers violated due process by telling the c ompany that the license revoc ation was non-a ppeala ble and by

ref using to stay

enfor ceme nt pending appea l; and the district court fa iled expli citly to addre ss the liability

of the individual offic ers in its order
. There are two problems with Mag num’s argument. First, while diff ere nt standards g overn the liability

of a municipa l defe ndant and an individual off icer under § 1983, that does not mean the same fla w ca nnot defe at both claims. That is what ha ppened he re.
I n r e je c tin g th is cla im, the dis tr ic t c ourt c or re c tly re a so ne d th a t th e c omp any ha d f a ile d to alleg e and pr ove the inade quacy of state r emedies. A s we have explained, a § 1983 plaintiff “may pr e va il o n a

pr oc e dura l du e pr oc e ss c la im by e ith e r (1 ) de mon str a tin g that he is d e pr ive d o f p ro pe rt y as a result of [ an] established st ate procedur e that itself violates due proc ess rig hts; or (2) by proving that th e de fe nd ants de pr ive d h im o f p ro pe rt y purs ua nt t o a ra nd om a nd un a uth or ize d a c t and

thatNo. 07-4212

Magnum Towing & Rec overy v. City of Toledo

- 6 - available state re medies would not ade quately compensate for the loss.” Mace ne v. MJW , Inc. , 951 F .2 d 7 00 , 7 06 (6 th Cir . 1 99 1) (i nte rn a l qu otatio n ma rk s o mit te d) ; see also Mitche ll v. Fankhauser , 37 5 F .3 d 4 77 , 4 81 –8 4 ( 6th Cir . 2 00 4) (s ta tin g tha

t a pla int if f m ust ple a d th e ina de qu a c y

of state
re me die s w he n an a lle g e d due pr oc e ss vio la tio n invo lve s a rand om or un a uth or ize d a c t) ; Rothhaupt v. Maide n , 144 F. App’ x 465, 472 (6th Cir. July 20, 2005) (af firming the dismiss al of the pla intiff’s du e pr oc e ss c la ims wh e re the pla int if f f a ile d to e xpla in wh y a

state tor t r e me dy fo r c on ve rs ion

wo uld not suffice to addre ss his claim). Mag num Towing relied on the second the ory —namely , the one r e q

uiring it to show there wa s
no state re me dy

fo r i ts l os s— and

ne ve r argue d that its inj ur ie s ste mme d fr om a n “ e sta bli sh e d s ta te pr oc e dure .” A c on sta

nt t he me in t his te n- y e ar s a g a ha s b e e n th a t vi nd ic tiv e of fi c ia ls w e re ou t to

“ g e t” the c omp any , JA 2 69 , and that it wa s “ sin g le d o ut” fo r m istre a tme nt, JA 27 2; se e als o J A 269 (De fenda nts had a “ malicious intent to harm M agnum[] and ef fec tively put Mag num out of bu sin e ss. ” ); id. (“Capta in Henesse y , of h is o wn a c c or d , throug h S[ earg e nt] Ry

d er, r emoved Ma g num fr om t he tow lis t on July 14 , 2 00 3. ” ) ( e mph a sis a dd e d) . B ut f or the un aut ho ri zed

a c ts o f t he se officia ls, the company argued, the City ’s established pr ocedur es would g ive it relief. See Br . at 11 (“Ma g num appea led the suspension the same day , expecting to be re- instated to the tow list pending [i ts] appea l to the Tow Review Boa rd, as is consistent wi th [Tol edo Munic ipal Code] § 765.26( c) .”) (empha sis added).
Ev e n a ssumin g that Ma g num T ow ingpo sse sse d a pr op e rt y int e re st i n its to w l ic e ns e a nd in its presenc e on the towinglist, i ts procedur al due pr ocess c laims come up short beca use it “ca nnotNo. 07-4212

Magnum Towing & Rec overy v. City of Toledo

- 7 - claim a de nial of due pr ocess wi t h o u t ex plaining w hy the exist ing pr ocess is inade quate.” Rothhaupt , 144 F. App’x at 472. Consider one proc edura l option that the company never explored: I t c o u ld h a v e a

p p e a le d it s r e mo v a l f

r o m th e to w in g li s t to th e s tate c o u rt o f c o mm o n p leas unde r Ohio Revised Code § 2506.01. Except as otherw ise provided, t h at section say s that “eve ry final order , adjudication, or de cision of any office r, tribunal, author ity , board, bur eau, c ommissi on, depar tment, or other divi sion of any political subdivision of t he st ate may be re viewed by

the cour t of common plea s of the county in which the princ ipal office of the political subdivision is l ocate d.” Oh io R e v. Cod e § 2 50 6. 01 (A ). Th e c omp any of fe rs no e xplanatio n why thi s r e me dy , amon g oth e rs , could not have solve d its problem with the supposedly unauthorized ac ts of the City ’s offic ers. A plaintiff, it is true, is not require d to exhaust s t at e re m ed i es before pur suing a § 1983 p r o c e d u r a l d u e p r o c e s s claim. See Ch az Con str ., LLC v . Co de ll , 137 F. App’ x 735, 741 (6th Cir. May 11, 2005). B ut it st ill mus t prove as an element of the c laim that state proce dural re medies ar e inadequate. “I f satisfac tory state proc edure s are provided in a proce dural due proce ss case , then no constitutional deprivation has occ urre d despite the injury ,” Jefferson v . Jefferson County Pub. Sc h. Sy s. , 360 F.3d 583, 587–88 (6th Cir. 2004), which is why “the plaintiff must attac k the state’s
corr ective pr ocedur e as w ell as the substantive wr ong ,” Me y e rs v . Ci ty

of Cinc inn ati , 934 F.2d 726, 731 (6th Cir. 1991) (interna l quotation mar ks omitted). I n short, this flaw in the company ’s theory of lia bil ity do ome d it s d

ue pr oc e ss c la im a g a ins t bo th the City and its of fi c e rs . Se c on d, wh ile it may be tr ue that the dis tr ic t court

did no t e xplic itl y

a dd re ss t he ind ivi du a lc a pa c ity c la ims again st the of

fi c e rs a ft e r i de nti fy

ingthi s f law i n th e c omp any ’s c omp la int a g a ins tNo. 07-4212

Magnum Towing & Rec overy v. City of Toledo

- 8 - the C ity , no harm resulted. The fact remains that the company must establish a triable issue of f act
on thi s po int

—w he the r a g a ins t the City or its of fi c e rs —a nd it ha s no t. Th e c la im was prop e rl y reje cted a s a matter of

law.
C. Mag num Towing next contends that the district court er red in g ranting summary

judgme nt on its state law claims. We disag ree . 1.
The c ompany

filed a malicious-cr iminal-prosec ution c laim a g ainst the City premised on the
c r i m i n a l c h ar g e s i t a l l e g e d l y f i l e d a g a i n s t M a g n u m , P e t r e y an d h e r s o n s , K e v i nan d

K e i t h T r o mb l e y. To pr ov e a

ma lic iou s- c ri min a l- pr os e c uti on c la im und e r O hio law, a pla int if f m us t de mon strate (1) that the g overnme nt of ficials instit uted or continued criminal proc eeding s with malice; (2) that they lacke d probable cause ; a

nd (3) that the cr iminal prosecution terminate d in favor of the ac cused. See Trussell v. Gen. Motors Corp. , 5 59 N. E. 2d 73 2, 73 6 ( Oh io 1 99 0) ; see also Harris v. United States , 422 F.3d 322, 327 ( 6th Cir. 2005).
Th e pr ob le m w iththi s c la im, a s the dis tr ic t c ourt re c og nize d, is that th e c omp any po int e d to to no a dmi ssi ble e vid e nc e e sta bli sh ing the fi rs t e le me nt of it— name ly , that the City , a s o pp os e d to some other e ntity , instit uted criminal proce eding s ag ainst the company . I t r emains undisputed that the State of Ohio, not the C ity , broug ht char g es aga inst Petrey for f iling an imprope r tax return andNo. 07-4212

Magnum Towing & Rec overy v. City of Toledo

- 9 - op e ratin g wi tho ut a

re qu ir e d v e nd or ’s lic e ns e . An d whi le be nc h warr ants we re iss ue d f or the a rr e sts of Kevin and Kei th Tr omb le y fo r t he ir fa ilure to a

pp e ar i n c ourt

in t wo se pa rate , unr e la te d c a se s, Petrey admitted in her de position t hat s he did not know who broug ht the orig inal char g es ag ainst her
sons.
Th e c omp any fu

rt he r c on te nd s that the dis tr ic t c ourt fa ile d to c on sid e r va ri ou s do c ume nts it submitt ed in support of its claims. First, the district c ourt proper ly did not consider any documents—including the purporte d City Buildi n g Documents a nd the Ohio sales tax documents—that we re una uthenticated or

otherwise failed to me et the re quirements of Rule 56( e) of the F eder al Rules of Civil P roce dure. See U .S. Structures, Inc. v . J.P. Structures, I nc. , 130 F.3d 11 85 , 1 18 9 ( 6th

Cir . 1 99 7) ; W

y so ng v . Ci ty of H e ath , 260 F. App’x 848, 857 (6th Cir. J an. 22, 2008); cf. Moore v . Holbrook , 2 F.3d 697, 699 ( 6th Cir. 1993). Secon d , the company ’s ar g ument that Pe tr e y ’s a ff

ida vit “ c le arl y

sh ow [s] tha

t th e pr os e c uti on

of Anna Pe tr e y , w hil e te c hn ic a lly

br ou g ht i n the name of the State of Ohio, was clea rly instigate d and maintained by Def endants-A

ppellees,” Br
. at 25, lacks merit. Petrey ’s aff idavit c ontradicts her ear lier deposition testimony , and “a party cannot
cre ate a g enuine issue of

materia l fac t by

filing a n aff idavit, after

a mot ion for summ ary

judgme nt has bee n m ad e, that essentially contra dicts [her] earlier de position t estimony ,” Penny v. United Parcel Se rv. , 1 28 F .3 d 4 08 , 4 15 (6 th C ir . 1 99 7) ; se e als o Moore v . Lafayette Life Ins. Co. , 458 F.3d 41 6, 43 3 ( 6th

Cir . 2 00 4) (same) . T he dis tr ic t c ourt pr op e rl y g ra nte d s umm ary

jud g me nt o n th is
c la im.No. 07-4212

Magnum Towing & Rec overy v. City of Toledo

- 10 - 2.
To establish a c laim for abuse of proce ss unde r Ohio law, a plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) a leg al proce eding has been set in motion in pr oper form and with pr obable caus e; (2 ) t he proce eding has been perve rted to a ttempt to acc omplish an ulterior purpose for whi ch i t wa s n ot design ed ; an d (3) dire ct damag e has r esulted fr om the wrong ful use of pr ocess. See Yaklevich v

. Kemp, Schae

ffer & Rowe Co., L.P.A. , 626 N.E.2d 115, 118 (Oh i o 1994). The c ompany ’s own
ar g u m e n t s d e f

e a t t h i s c l a i m . It c o n t e n d s t h a tt h e C i t y im pr op e rly remove d it f

rom the towing list on J uly 14, 2003, as a way

to “g et Mag num,” J A 269, then ar g ues that “[t] he police suspe nded Mag num first, then tried to find a

rea son for the suspe nsion after the fa ct,” id. Acc ording to Mag num, then, the City did not remove it “ proper ly ,” as r equire d to establish this claim, but i mproperly
. See J A 379 (“The documents
. . . s h o w t hat Def endants, with ou t c au se , remove d Mag num Towing from the Police Tow list on J uly

14, 2003, and then afte r the fa ct tried to utiliz e the City Building I nspection D e p art m e n tt o j u s t i f

y D e f e n d an t s [’ ] r e m o v a l o f

P l a i n t i f f s f r o m t h e t o w l i s t
. ” ) ( e mp h a s i s a d d e d ) ; JA 270 (“D efe ndants[] took Ma g num of f the tow list first, tried to f ind the ‘violations’ second, the n had to put [ it] back on the list when they couldn’t find any

thing. ”)
. E v en as s uming the c ompany had alleg ed that the City

proper ly remove d it from the towing list, Mag num of fer s nothing but conje cture to sugg est that the City

used a le g al proc eedingas a “ club,” see Robb v . Chagrin L agoons Y acht Club, Inc. , 662 N.E.2d 9, 14 (Ohio 1996) ( “[T] he improper purpose usua lly

takes the f

orm of
coer cion to obtain a collate ral a dvantag e, not prope rly involved in the proceedingitself, such as the
surre nder of

proper ty or t he pay

ment of money , by

the use of the proce ss as a thre at or a club.”)No. 07-4212

Magnum Towing & Rec overy v. City of Toledo

- 11 - (interna l quotation marks omitted), to achieve its alleg edly ulterior purpose of “put[ting] Mag num out of business,” B r. at 26. This cla im, too, was proper ly dismiss ed as a

matter of la

w.
3. Mag num also contends that t h e C ity brea ched a

provision of the August 2002 settlement ag ree ment which provid es i n re l evant part that “[i] t is further unde rstood and ag ree d that no
re ta liator y a c tio ns sh a ll be take n a g a ins t Ma g num To wi ng by the City or its Pol ic e De pa

rtme nt w ith reg ard to its Class A status a s a result of the institut ion of the lawsuit at issue her e or its re solution.” J A 25. To establish a cla im for bre ach of contra ct under

Ohio law, a pla intiff must establish (1) that a binding contra ct exist ed; (2) that the plaintiff fulfi l l ed h i s o bligations; (3) that the defe ndant unlawfully failed to f

ulfill its contra ctual obligations; and (4) that the plaintiff suf fer ed dama g es as
a result of the brea ch. Se e Lawr e nc e v . Lo ra in C ou nty Cm ty . Co ll. , 713 N. E. 2d

47 8, 48 0 ( Oh io C t. App. 1998).
I n its memorandum in oppositi on to the City ’s motion for s u m m ar y judgme nt, and indeed even in this appe al, Mag num fails to point to any specif i c re cord evidence supporting its cla im of
a re taliatory brea ch of the s ettlement agr eeme nt. I t is not the di strict court’s (or our) duty to searc h th r o u g h t h e r e c o r d t o d e v e l o p a p art y ’ s c l a i m s ; t h e l i t i g an t m u s t d i r e c t t h e c o u rt t o e v i d e n c e in support of its arguments befor e the c ourt. See W ardle v. Lexi n g ton-Faye tte Urban County Gov’ t , 45 F . App ’x 50 5, 509 (6t h Ci r. S ept . 5 , 2 00 2) (p e r c ur iam) (“ [A] di str ic t c ourt is n ot r e qu ir e d to
sear ch the r ecor d to de termine whether g enuine issues of materia l fac t exi st when the non-movingNo. 07-4212

Magnum Towing & Rec overy v. City of Toledo

- 12 - pa rt y ha s f a ile d to poi nt t

he m out.” ); Bickle

y v. Norfolk &W

. Ry. , No. 98-3286, 1999 U.S. App. L EX I S 13 65 4, a t *1 1 ( 6th Cir . Jun e 15 , 1 99 9) (“ To su rv ive a mot ion fo r s umm ary

judgm ent, it i s incumbent upon the nonmovant to point to specific e vidence sufficie nt to show that a rea sonable jury could find for

the nonmovant.”) . Conclusory asser tions will not by

themselves do the trick—and that is all Mag num Towing has done w ith respec t to this claim.
D.
The c ompany

lastly takes issue with the di strict court’s order of May 9, 2006, which g rante d the City ’s motion for dismissal of Magnum’s claim that Ohio law preempts the C ity ’s re g ulations g overningpolice-or dere d towing. Th e City as an initial matter c ontends that, bec ause Ma g num Towing ’s notice o f ap peal r efe renc ed only the district court’s Aug ust 29, 2007, decision, not the order on the City ’s motion to dis miss, we lack jurisdiction over this claim. W e disag ree . Although Ma g num’s notice of appea l expli citly ref ere nces just the district court’s Aug ust 29 order , it is well-settled that “an a ppeal of a fina l judgment dr aws into question all prior non-f inal ruling s and orde rs.” Caudill v. Hollan , 431 F.3d 900, 904 (6th Cir. 2005) (interna l quotation marks omi tte d) ; see also Nat’l Ecological Found. v. A lexande r , 496 F.3d 466, 476 (6th Cir. 2007). We thus have jur isd ic tio n o ve r t

his po rt ion

of the a pp e a l. Havingrevie wed the me rits of this portion of the appea l, howeve r, we find it wanting . For the re asons adequately

g iven by the district court, this claim was pr operly dismiss ed as a

matter of law.No. 07-4212

Magnum Towing & Rec overy v. City of Toledo

- 13 - III
. F or the se re a so ns , w e a ff

ir m.