◆ SpookStack

* . @ _ is ~ MAIORANA UV. MACDONALD trial. This is clearly not the type of situation’ where the physical facts themselves create an issue,. as, for instance, if Maiorana had been shot in the back. T6 summarize, the critical portions of the plaintiff’s €otinteraffidavits have such glaring and pervasive defects that we are obliged to give them little weight, but, even if We considered them as in full compliance with the rule, We do not fecl they would prevent summary judgment. See Tritsis v. Backer, supra, 501 F.2d at 1024; Strutt v. Upham, supra, 440 F.2d at 1237.3 Because of our decision that summary judgment was properly granted to all defendants, we do. not reach the qeestion: whether the plaintiff’s civil rights actions sur- _ vived her son’s death. Affirmed. i ; 43 The cases cited by the plaintiff in which summary judgment for arresting police officers was denied do not persuade us other- wise, In Shifrin v. Wilson, 412 F. Supp. 1282 (D.C. Cir. 1976), the officer who ordered the plaintiff’s arrest under an unconstitu- tonal regulation did not argue with any consistency and clarity | that he acted with a reasnable belief and good faith. Jd. at 1295-96. | . in West v. Wheatley, 318 F. Supp. 656 (D. Del. 1970), differing inferences could have been drawn on ‘the issues whether the de- feadant had reasonable grounds to arrest for a felony and used unreasonable force in killing the person arrested; the defense of qualified immunity does not appear to have been raised. Both ‘eases contained broad language hostile to summary judgment which ¥aay be inconsistent with the approach taken by the Supreme Court ih Butz v. Economou, 98 S. Ct. 2894, 46 U.S.L.W. 4952 (June 29, 1978), and Procunier v. Navarette, 434 U.S. 555 (1978). Fail a - Adm, Office, U. S. Courts — Blanchard Press, Inc., Boston, Mass. - 18a -