Opinion ID: 2975230
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: standard of review

Text: We review a district court’s denial of summary judgment de novo. Williams v. Mehra, 186 F.3d 685, 689 (6th Cir. 1999) (en banc). Summary judgment is proper when “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, -4- No. 06-6067 Srisavath v. City of Brentwood show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The party moving for summary judgment has the burden of proof and must demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). Denial of qualified immunity is an issue of law reviewed de novo. Pray v. City of Sandusky, 49 F.3d 1154, 1157 (6th Cir. 1995). Where there is disagreement about the facts, we must review the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, taking all inferences in his favor. Swiecicki v. Delgado, 463 F.3d 489, 497 (6th Cir. 2006) (citing Champion v. Outlook Nashville, Inc., 380 F.3d 893, 900 (6th Cir. 2004)).