Opinion ID: 2971615
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Claims Against Individual Officers

Text: Turning to Plaintiffs’ objection to the dismissal of their claims against individual police officers, we likewise view the district court judgment affirmatively. Plaintiffs do not dispute their failure to identify the unnamed police officers within the limitations period, but insist the limitations period should be tolled because the City and Police Department’s discovery abuses prevented timely discovery of the officers’ names. The district court treated this argument as forfeited under Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure due to the failure to timely object to the magistrate’s report.2 Even assuming no forfeiture, however, we find equitable tolling unwarranted. Plaintiffs could not 2 The Rule requires parties to file objections to a magistrate’s report and recommendation within ten days of the time the report is filed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). Here, Plaintiffs, supporting their motion to amend the complaint, argued their tolling theory to the magistrate but failed to object to the order denying amendment. This, the district court concluded, foreclosed further litigation of the argument. -4- No. 03-2031 Deruso v. Detroit deny during the summary judgment hearing that they obtained the names of the police officers involved in the incident, as well as some of the officers’ reports, well before the expiration of the limitations period. Plaintiffs instead argued that because the information Defendants gave them was overbroad and not directly responsive to the questions asked, they were prevented from properly amending their complaint. The magistrate judge rejected this argument and we similarly find it unpersuasive following our review of the City’s responses to Plaintiffs’ interrogatories on the subject. Absent a compelling reason for tolling the statute of limitations, the district court properly dismissed the complaints as time-barred.