Montelis Peters v. Rob Caplan

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:14-cv-00955-GJH. Copies to all parties and the district court. [1000002462].. [16-1475]

Appeal: 16-1475

Doc: 33

Filed: 01/12/2017

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1475

MONTELIS PETERS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CORPORAL ROB CAPLAN, Badge No. 122; CITY OF MOUNT RAINIER,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.
George J. Hazel, District Judge.
(8:14-cv-00955-GJH)

Submitted:

November 30, 2016

Decided:

January 12, 2017

Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Christopher Belcher, Oxon Hill, Maryland, for Appellant.
John F. Breads, Jr., LOCAL GOVERNMENT INSURANCE TRUST, Hanover,
Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1475

Doc: 33

Filed: 01/12/2017

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Montelis Peters sued the City of Mount Rainier, Maryland,
and Corporal Rob Caplan under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) and the
Maryland
complaint

Declaration
alleged

arrested Peters.

of

that

Rights
the

Articles

City

and

24

and

Corporal

26.

Caplan

The
falsely

The district court dismissed the case.

Peters

now appeals the district court’s orders dismissing the § 1983
claim against the City and granting summary judgment to Corporal
Caplan on the § 1983 and Maryland claims.

Finding no error, we

affirm.
First,

we

review

de

novo

the

summary judgment to Corporal Caplan.

district

court’s

grant

of

See Core Commc’ns, Inc. v.

Verizon Md. LLC, 744 F.3d 310, 320 (4th Cir. 2014).

A court may

award summary judgment only when no genuine dispute of material
fact

remains

and

the

record

shows

that

entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Peters

challenges

the

district

the

moving

party

is

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).

court’s

grant

of

summary

judgment to Corporal Caplan on three grounds, alleging that the
court erred (1) by resolving disputed issues of material fact in
Corporal Caplan’s favor; (2) by ruling that Corporal Caplan had
probable

cause

to

arrest

Peters;

and

(3)

by

holding

that

Corporal Caplan’s statement of probable cause was not materially
misleading.

2

Appeal: 16-1475

Doc: 33

We

Filed: 01/12/2017

conclude

that

the

Pg: 3 of 4

district

court

did

resolve disputed issues of material fact.

not

improperly

Peters’ arguments

speculate about the meaning of evidence and fail to create a
dispute of material fact that is genuine.
The district court also properly ruled that Corporal Caplan
had probable cause to arrest Peters.
district

court’s

finding

that

The record supports the

the

police

conducted

an

investigative stop, not an arrest, when they stopped Peters.
See United States v. Elston, 479 F.3d 314, 319-20 (4th Cir.
2007) (requiring police to curtail suspect’s freedom to degree
of formal arrest to transform mere stop into an arrest).
agree

with

conducted

the
the

district
stop,

court

that

identifying

a

the

officers

reasonable

suspicion that Peters had committed a crime.

We

properly

articulable

See Terry v. Ohio,

392 U.S. 1 (1968).
Second,

we

perceive

no

error

in

the

district

court’s

conclusion that Corporal Caplan’s statement of probable cause
was not materially false or misleading.

See Miller v. Prince

George’s Cty., 475 F.3d 621, 628 (4th Cir. 2007).

Thus, civil

liability could not attach to Corporal Caplan, and the district
court properly granted him summary judgment.
Finally,
against

the

municipality,

we

turn

City.
a

to

the

To

state

plaintiff

dismissal

must
3

a

of

§ 1983

allege

that

the

§ 1983

claim
the

claim

against

a

municipality

Appeal: 16-1475

Doc: 33

Filed: 01/12/2017

Pg: 4 of 4

deprived or caused an official to deprive the plaintiff of a
constitutional right through an official policy or custom.

See

Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978).

As

discussed above, Peters has failed to allege a deprivation of
constitutional right, so his claim against the City must fail as
well.

See City of Los Angeles v. Heller, 475 U.S. 796, 799

(1986) (holding that municipal liability under § 1983 requires a
finding of constitutional injury as a prerequisite).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s rulings.
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

4