223540P.pdf   12/22/2023  Allen Bloodworth, II  v.  Kansas City Board of Police Commissioners
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  22-3540
   U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City   
   [PUBLISHED] [Loken, Author, with Wollman and Benton, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil case - Civil rights. In this action plaintiff alleges the Kansas 
   City Board of Police Commissioners, acting through its board members and 
   with the assistance of fourteen police officers, stopped him from 
   operating his two businesses and kept him from conducting business with 
   the City. The district court issued dismissal orders and then granted 
   summary judgment to a group of police officers and officer Lemon; with 
   respect to the group of officers they were entitled to official immunity 
   for their acts in carrying out their responsibilities as police officers, 
   and the district court properly dismissed plaintiff's state law claims 
   against them. With respect to defendant Lemon, he was entitled to summary 
   judgment on plaintiff's defamation claim concerning statements he made to 
   plaintiff in a phone call, as he did not publish the statements himself 
   and had no reason to believe they would be communicated to a third party; 
   defendant Lemon was entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff's tortious 
   interference claims as there was no evidence defendant took any part in 
   the filing of forgery charges against plaintiff, and plaintiff had failed 
   to identify any expectancies which were harmed; no error in granting 
   summary judgment to Lemon on plaintiff's assault count based on statements 
   made over the phone; no error in granting Lemon summary judgment on 
   plaintiff's claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress as 
   Lemon's conduct, while ill-considered, was not so extreme and outrageous 
   as to qualify as intentional infliction under Missouri law; with respect 
   to plaintiff's federal claims, the court summarily affirms every Section 
   1983 action against a defendant whose conduct was not specifically linked 
   to that particular alleged violation; neither plaintiff's claim that 
   defendants conducted a campaign against his business nor his claim of 
   excessive force and unreasonable search and seizure established a 
   constitutional violation; officers reasonably believed plaintiff's dog 
   constituted an imminent danger to them when they shot the dog; claim 
   defendants engaged in intentional Fourth Amendment violations by acting 
   together to render plaintiff unable to conduct his business rejected; 
   claim four defendant failed to properly supervise the officers must fail 
   where the court finds no constitutional violation by the supervised 
   officers; similarly, there is no Monell liability for the Board and its 
   members.