NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 06a0146n.06 Filed: February 24, 2006 05-3118 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

SHERRY OVERHOLT and MARK OVERHOLT, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v. MONTVILLE TOWNSHIP et al., Defendants-Appellees. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

Before: MARTIN, NORRIS, and DAUGHTREY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. The plaintiffs, Sherry and Mark Overholt, appeal from the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the defendant s in this civil action for unlawful search and seizure and use of excessive fo rce under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and for intentional infliction of emotional distress and assault and battery under state law. The defendants, Montville Township and three members of the M ontville Police Department (collectively, the Montville defendants), Medina C ounty, the Medina County Sheriff and Medina County SWAT members “John Doe” and “Janet Doe” (collectively, the Medina defendants), defended on the basis that the s earch warrant and the arrest warrant that the Montville officers executed at the home of the plaintiffs were facially valid; thatthe arresting officers and the SWAT members used no more force than was necessary to arrest Mark Overholt,05-3118 Overholt v. Montville Township

- 2 - who was named in the warrants; that Sheri ff Hassinger had no part in the use of force against the plaintiffs and could not be held li able on a theory of respondent superior; and that the township and the county were not shown to have incurred liability under Monell v. Department of Social Services , 436 U.S. 658 (1978). The plaintiffs now appeal the judgment of the district court, which rul ed in the defendants’ favor on all claims. On appeal, the plaintiffs first contend thatthe district court erred “by denying numerous motions for the extens ion of factual discovery deadli nes and a Fed. R. P. 56(f) motion [sic] after an amended complaint was f iled.” The Medina defendants question our jurisdiction to review the district court’s rulings on the discovery motions, citing the requirement in Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c)(1)(B) thata notice of appeal must “designate the judgment, order, or part thereof being appealed.” They point out that the notice of appeal does not referenc e any of the interim orders ent ered by the district court other than “the final judgment entry set forth in the District Court’s Memorandum of Opinion and Order of December 30, 2004 granting su mmary judgment to the Defendants.” We have held, however, that“an appeal from a final judgment draws into question all prior nonfinal rulings and orders.” Crawford v. Roane , 53 F.3d 750, 752 (6th Cir. 1995). We therefore conclude thatthe district court’s rulings on the discovery motions are subject to review under the notice of appeal filed by the plaintiffs in this case. Upon review of those rulings, however, we find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decisions. An order deny ing the plaintiffs’ motion to extend the time for discovery,05-3118 Overholt v. Montville Township

- 3 - dated January 12, 2004, notes that the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate why such an extension is necessary or to “give any ex planation as to why itwill not be possible to complete . . . discovery by March 22 [2004],” the discovery deadline set by the magistrate judge. As to the plaintiffs’ ot her extension motions and motions to compel, the district court carefully considered each, denying in part and gr anting in part, and finding in at least one instance that the motion did not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f). As to none of these decisions do we fi nd an abuse of discretion that w ould require us to set aside the district court’s entry of final judgment. Because the search warrant was facially va lid, the district court held that defendants could not be charged with an illegal search and se izure in the execution of the warrant. The court also found that the officers who effected Mark Overholt’s arrest used objectively reasonable force under the circumstances, and that there was no ex cessive force used against Sherry Overholt. Citing a lack of evidenc e, the district court found in addition that there was no basis for holding t hat the county and the township were liable. Because the state law claims were dependent upon a finding of unreasonable or excessive force, the district court entered summary j udgment on those claims as well. Having had the benefit of oral argum ent, and having studied the record on appeal and the briefs of the parties, we are not persuaded that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint. Because the reas ons why judgment should be entered for the defendants have been fully articulated by the di strict court, the issuance of a detailed05-3118 Overholt v. Montville Township

- 4 - opinion by this court would be duplicative and w ould serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of t he district court upon the reasoning set out by that court in its order dated December 29, 2004.