Opinion ID: 2972746
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: “Because review of a denial of qualified immunity claim is an issue of law, our review is de novo.” Yates v. City of Cleveland, 941 F.2d 444, 446 (6th Cir. 1991). In reviewing a claim for qualified immunity, we employ a three-step inquiry: First, we determine whether, based upon the applicable law, the facts viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff[] show that a constitutional violation has occurred. Second, we consider whether the violation involved a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known. Third, we determine whether the plaintiff has offered sufficient evidence to indicate that what the official allegedly did was objectively unreasonable in light of the clearly established constitutional rights. Feathers v. Aey, 319 F.3d 843, 848 (6th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation omitted). “Qualified immunity must be granted if the plaintiff cannot establish each of these elements.” Radvansky v. City of Olmsted Falls, 395 F.3d 291, 302 (6th Cir. 2005).