Michael McCloud v. L. Jackson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:14-cv-00101-MSD-LRL Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999669004]. Mailed to: McCloud. [15-1490]

Appeal: 15-1490

Doc: 10

Filed: 09/30/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1490

MICHAEL MCCLOUD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
L. JACKSON, Police Officer,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Mark S. Davis, District
Judge. (4:14-cv-00101-MSD-LRL)

Submitted:

September 28, 2015

Decided:

September 30, 2015

Before WILKINSON, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael McCloud, Appellant Pro Se.
Adonica Baine, Darlene P.
Bradberry, OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1490

Doc: 10

Filed: 09/30/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Michael McCloud appeals the district court’s order granting
the Defendant’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss his
42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint.
and

find

no

reversible

error.

We have reviewed the record
Accordingly,

we

affirm

substantially the reasons stated by the district court. ∗

for
See

McCloud v. Jackson, No. 4:14-cv-00101-MSD-LRL (E.D. Va. Apr. 3,
2015).
legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.

AFFIRMED

∗

We agree that McCloud’s complaint failed to state a
plausible claim for relief, and Defendant’s Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6) motion was properly granted on this basis.
McCloud
claimed the Defendant did not have probable cause for a traffic
stop that resulted in McCloud being charged with and convicted
of displaying a counterfeit safety inspection sticker. However,
the Defendant was not required to have probable cause for the
investigatory stop but only a reasonable basis to suspect him of
breaking the law. See Heien v. North Carolina, 135 S. Ct. 530,
536 (2014).
The complaint failed to state a plausible claim
because it did not contain sufficient factual allegations for a
court to infer that the Defendant did not have such reasonable
suspicion when he stopped McCloud. We note, however, that this
claim was not barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994),
because the conviction only resulted in a fine.
See Covey v.
Assessor of Ohio Cnty., 777 F.3d 186, 197 (4th Cir. 2015).

2