Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Richardson v. Counts, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    0 views2 pages
    1) Alonzo Richardson appealed the district court's denial of relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Charles Counts. 2) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's judgment. 3) The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Richardson's constitutional claim because Richardson did not allege that the prior criminal proceeding against him terminated in his favor, which is an essential element of a § 1983 claim based on a seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2010-02-02 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 09-7665

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) Alonzo Richardson appealed the district court's denial of relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Charles Counts. 2) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's judgment. 3) The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Richardson's constitutional claim because Richardson did not allege that the prior criminal proceeding against him terminated in his favor, which is an essential element of a § 1983 claim based on a seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    0 views2 pages

    Richardson v. Counts, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Alonzo Richardson appealed the district court's denial of relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Charles Counts. 2) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's judgment. 3) The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Richardson's constitutional claim because Richardson did not allege that the prior criminal proceeding against him terminated in his favor, which is an essential element of a § 1983 claim based on a seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 09-7665

    ALONZO RICHARDSON,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    CHARLES E. COUNTS,
    Defendant - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Rock Hill.
    David C. Norton, Chief District
    Judge. (0:09-cv-01997-DCN)

    Submitted:

    January 13, 2010

    Decided:

    February 2, 2010

    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Alonzo Richardson, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Alonzo

    Richardson

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts

    order

    denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2006) complaint.


    have

    reviewed

    Accordingly,
    Richardson

    we
    v.

    the

    record

    affirm

    the

    Counts,

    No.

    and

    find

    district

    no

    reversible

    courts

    0:09-cv-01997-DCN

    Aug. 31, 2009 & entered Sept. 1, 2009).

    We

    error.

    judgment *

    See

    (D.S.C.

    filed

    We dispense with oral

    argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately


    presented in the materials before the court and argument would
    not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED

    Although Richardsons claim that Defendant Counts made


    false representations in his application for an arrest warrant
    falls under the Fourth Amendment exception noted in Heck v.
    Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 n.7 (1994), termination favorable to
    the plaintiff in the prior criminal proceeding is an essential
    element of a 1983 claim based on a seizure in violation of the
    Fourth Amendment. Lambert v. Williams, 223 F.3d 257, 262 & n.3
    (4th Cir. 2000); Brooks v. City of Winston-Salem, 85 F.3d 178,
    182-83 (4th Cir. 1996).
    We accordingly affirm the district
    courts dismissal of Richardsons constitutional claim on the
    ground that Richardson made no allegation of such a favorable
    termination.

    You might also like