Justin Mallory, Sr. v. Travis Holdorf

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for judicial notice [999230624-2] Originating case number: 3:11-cv-03295-MBS Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999368244].. [13-6290]

Appeal: 13-6290

Doc: 45

Filed: 06/03/2014

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6290

JUSTIN WRIGHT MALLORY, SR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
TRAVIS HOLDORF; STAN SMITH; RANDY STRANGE,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.
Margaret B. Seymour, Senior
District Judge. (3:11-cv-03295-MBS)

Submitted:

April 22, 2014

Decided:

June 3, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

J. Edward Bell, III, BELL LEGAL GROUP, Georgetown, South
Carolina; Jerry L. Finney, THE FINNEY LAW FIRM, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellant.
Andrew F. Lindemann, Robert D.
Garfield, DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina,
for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-6290

Doc: 45

Filed: 06/03/2014

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Justin

Wright

Mallory,

Sr.,

appeals

from

the

district

court’s order granting summary judgment to Travis Holdorf, Stan
Smith, and Randy Strange (collectively, “defendants”) 1 in this 42
U.S.C. § 1983 action.

Mallory argues that defendants violated

his Fourth Amendment rights by arresting and prosecuting him for
the murder of his wife without probable cause, and violated his
Fourteenth
evidence

Amendment
against

right

him.

to

He

due

argues

process
that

by

the

fabricating

district

court

improperly applied the summary judgment standard, and that it
prematurely granted summary judgment because he was unable to
depose a key witness.

Finding no error, we affirm.

I.
We

review

judgment,

de

novo

viewing

a

the

district

facts

and

court’s

grant

drawing

all

of

summary

reasonable

inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.
Glynn v. EDO Corp., 710 F.3d 209, 213 (4th Cir. 2013).
A.
To establish a Fourth Amendment violation, a plaintiff must
establish

that

defendants

“(1)

1

caused

(2)

a

seizure

of

the

At the time of the events relevant to this appeal,
defendants were employed as deputies with the Richland County,
South Carolina Sheriff’s Department.
2

Appeal: 13-6290

Doc: 45

plaintiff

Filed: 06/03/2014

pursuant

to

legal

Pg: 3 of 4

process

unsupported

by

probable

cause, and (3) criminal proceedings terminated in plaintiff's
favor.”

Evans v. Chambers, 703 F.3d 636, 647 (4th Cir. 2012).

The primary issue in this case is probable cause.
“An officer has probable cause for arrest when the facts
and circumstances within the officer’s knowledge are sufficient
to warrant a prudent person, or one of reasonable caution, in
believing,

in

the

circumstances

committed . . . an offense.”

shown,

that

the

suspect

has

Burrell v. Virginia, 395 F.3d 508,

514 (4th Cir. 2005) (alteration and internal quotation marks
omitted).

After careful review of the record, we agree with the

district court that defendants had probable cause to arrest and
detain

Mallory

conclude

that

for

the

summary

murder

of

judgment

his

was

wife. 2

Therefore,

appropriate

on

we

Mallory’s

Fourth Amendment claims.
B.
To

demonstrate

Amendment

rights,

that
Mallory

defendants
must

show

violated
that

his

they

Fourteenth
“fabricated

evidence and that the fabrication resulted in a deprivation of
[his] liberty.”

Washington v. Wilmore, 407 F.3d 274, 282 (4th

Cir. 2005).
2

To bolster his argument as to probable cause, Mallory has
asked that we take judicial notice of medical reports not in the
record and not available to defendants when they arrested
Mallory. We deny the motion.
3

Appeal: 13-6290

Doc: 45

Filed: 06/03/2014

Pg: 4 of 4

We conclude that Mallory has failed to demonstrate that
defendants’

alleged

witness—coaching

pretrial detention.
supported
detention

by

the

evidence was used.

the

cause

of

his

As discussed above, Mallory’s arrest was

probable

after

was

cause.
trial

And

Mallory

where

the

was

released

allegedly

from

fabricated

Accordingly, we find that Mallory cannot

demonstrate a constitutional injury.
C.
Finally,

we

are

unpersuaded

by

Mallory’s

argument

that

summary judgment was premature because he was unable to depose a
key witness.

The testimony of the witness Mallory sought to

depose would not have created a material question of fact as to
whether probable cause existed to support Mallory’s arrest and
detention.

II.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because

the

facts

and

We

legal

contentions are adequately presented in the material before this
court and argument will not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

4