Opinion ID: 2782387
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Back v. Nestle USA, Inc., 694 F.3d 571, 575 (6th Cir. 2012). Summary judgment is appropriate only “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). It is not appropriate if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party, here Brown. See Weigel v. Baptist Hosp. of E. Tenn., 302 F.3d 367, 375 (6th Cir. 2002). We must view all evidence, and 2 Brown also sued the city of Bay City. The district court granted summary judgment on that claim but did not certify a final judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Nor did Brown ask us to exercise pendent jurisdiction over the non-final judgment. Also, Brown now characterizes the false-arrest claim as part of her Fourth Amendment wrongful-seizure claim. No. 14-1392 Brown v. Lewis, et al. Page 7 draw all reasonable inferences, in the light most favorable to Brown. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).