Paris Avery v. Christine Wilson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 9:14-cv-00037-MBS Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999984639].. [16-1369]

Appeal: 16-1369

Doc: 37

Filed: 12/12/2016

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1369

PARIS AVERY,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
CHRISTINE WILSON, in her individual capacity,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
ANGELA MARIE MCCALL-TANNER, in her individual capacity;
DEMETRA GARVIN, in her individual capacity; THE ESTATE OF
CORONER CURT COPELAND, in his individual capacity,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District
Judge. (9:14-cv-00037-MBS)

Submitted:

November 17, 2016

Decided:

December 12, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Elizabeth A. Franklin-Best, ELIZABETH FRANKLIN-BEST,
Columbia, South Carolina; E. Charles Grose, Jr., Greenwood,

P.C.,
South

Appeal: 16-1369

Doc: 37

Filed: 12/12/2016

Pg: 2 of 4

Carolina, for Appellant. Mary Bass Lohr, HOWELL, GIBSON & HUGHES,
P.A., Beaufort, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 16-1369

Doc: 37

Filed: 12/12/2016

Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Paris Avery appeals the district court’s order adopting the
magistrate judge’s recommendation to grant Defendants’ motions for
summary judgment in Avery’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action.

On

appeal, Avery challenges the court’s order only as it relates to
her

malicious

Wilson.

prosecution

claim

against

Defendant

Christine

Because Avery does not challenge the court’s findings as

to the remaining defendants or her failure to state a civil
conspiracy claim, she has waived appellate review of those issues.
See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A); United States v. Bartko, 728 F.3d
327, 335 (4th Cir. 2013).
“A

malicious

prosecution

claim

under

§ 1983

is

properly

understood as a Fourth Amendment claim for unreasonable seizure
which incorporates certain elements of the common law tort.” Evans
v. Chalmers, 703 F.3d 636, 647 (4th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation
marks omitted).

“To state such a claim, a plaintiff must allege

that the defendant (1) caused (2) a seizure of the plaintiff
pursuant to legal process unsupported by probable cause, and
(3) criminal proceedings terminated in plaintiff’s favor.”
Here,

whether

Wilson

violated

Avery’s

constitutional

depends on whether she had probable cause to arrest Avery.

Id.

rights
Brown

v. Gilmore, 278 F.3d 362, 367 (4th Cir. 2002).
Our review of the record reveals that probable cause existed
at the time of Avery’s arrest. Accordingly, we affirm the district
3

Appeal: 16-1369

Doc: 37

court’s order.

Filed: 12/12/2016

Pg: 4 of 4

We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before

this

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

4