Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-CV-841 RONALD JENKINS, et al., APPELLANTS, V. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., APPELLEES. Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia (CAB-5282-14) (Hon. Thomas J. Motley, Trial Judge) (Argued February 28, 2018 Decided January 30, 2020) Gregory L. Lattimer for appellants. Mary L. Wilson, Senior Assistant Attorney General, with whom Karl A. Racine, Attorney General for the District of Columbia, Todd S. Kim, Solicitor General at the time the brief was filed, and Loren L. AliKhan, Deputy Solicitor General at the time the brief was filed, were on the brief, for appellees. Before FISHER and THOMPSON, Associate Judges, and FERREN, Senior Judge. THOMPSON, Associate Judge: Plaintiffs/appellants Ronald and Sharon Jenkins appeal from an order of the Superior Court entering summary judgment in favor of defendants/appellees, the District of Columbia (the “District”) and Michael Davis, on plaintiffs’ claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, their 2 common-law claims of assault and battery, and Mr. Jenkins’s common-law claims of false arrest and negligent supervision. We affirm. I. Background The following facts are not in dispute. On the afternoon of September 2, 2013, the Jenkinses went to buy crabs at the Wharf, where Mr. Jenkins, who had been driving the Jenkinses’ vehicle, got into a verbal altercation with another driver (“the complainant”) in the parking lot. According to the Jenkinses, just before the altercation, the other driver had “stolen” the parking space for which Mr. Jenkins had been waiting. After the altercation, the Jenkinses, having found another parking space, went to make their purchases. Before they returned to their vehicle, a police radio run went out reporting “a traffic dispute that possibly resulted in some type of assault” in which “a knife had been pulled.” In response to the radio run, Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) Officer Michael Davis responded to the scene, where he spoke with other officers who were already present and, together with the other officers, began interviewing witnesses. At the scene, the police officers spoke with a number of individuals about what had occurred. The complainant’s nephew, a minor child with the initials 3 “S.M.,” told officers that Mr. Jenkins had argued with the complainant while armed with a small, folding pocketknife that had a serrated blade. 1 The complainant initially informed a detective that Mr. Jenkins was holding a set of keys in his hand and that he (the complainant) never saw a knife, but, an hour later, through an interpreter, the complainant told police that Mr. Jenkins had “angrily approached him . . . [and] produced what appeared to be a small pocket knife . . . .” An unidentified person told the police that he or she saw the complainant and Mr. Jenkins arguing but ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals