Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    40 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a claim of malicious prosecution brought by Pinrecko L. Artise under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1986 against the City of Chesapeake, Virginia and others. The court affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the claim, finding that Artise did not allege facts that would state a valid malicious prosecution claim under § 1983 since his prior conviction on housing violations was not terminated in his favor. The court also found that Artise did not show he was deprived of a protected liberty or property interest under the Fourteenth Amendment.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1987-09-21 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 829 F.2d 1119 Docket: 87-2576

    Original Title

    Pinrecko L. Artise v. City of Chesapeake, Virginia Sidney M. Oman, Manager Willa S. Bazemore, Vice-Mayor John W. Butt Walter Cartwright Nora Davenport Cecil Y. Jenkins Gary Markham William E. Ward David I. Whynne, Members of the Chesapeake City Council City of Chesapeake Health Department W.R. Hoddinott, Sanitation Manager, 829 F.2d 1119, 4th Cir. (1987)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a claim of malicious prosecution brought by Pinrecko L. Artise under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1986 against the City of Chesapeake, Virginia and others. The court affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the claim, finding that Artise did not allege facts that would state a valid malicious prosecution claim under § 1983 since his prior conviction on housing violations was not terminated in his favor. The court also found that Artise did not show he was deprived of a protected liberty or property interest under the Fourteenth Amendment.

    Copyright:

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

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a claim of malicious prosecution brought by Pinrecko L. Artise under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1986 against the City of Chesapeake, Virginia and others. The court affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the claim, finding that Artise did not allege facts that would state a valid malicious prosecution claim under § 1983 since his prior conviction on housing violations was not terminated in his favor. The court also found that Artise did not show he was deprived of a protected liberty or property interest under the Fourteenth Amendment.

    Copyright:

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

    829 F.

    2d 1119
    Unpublished Disposition

    NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of


    unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing
    res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires
    service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth
    Circuit.
    Pinrecko L. ARTISE, Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    CITY OF CHESAPEAKE, VIRGINIA; Sidney M. Oman,
    Manager;
    Willa S. Bazemore, Vice-Mayor; John W. Butt; Walter
    Cartwright; Nora Davenport; Cecil Y. Jenkins; Gary
    Markham; William E. Ward; David I. Whynne, members of
    the
    Chesapeake City Council; City of Chesapeake Health
    Department; W.R. Hoddinott, Sanitation Manager,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 87-2576.

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.


    Submitted Aug. 27, 1987.
    Decided Sept. 21, 1987.

    (James F. Gay, Michael L. Hockaday, Legal Center of Gay & Simmons,


    on brief), for appellant.
    (Mary Sue Terry, Attorney General of Virginia; John A. Rupp, Senior
    Assistant Attorney General; Carol S. Nance, Assistant Attorney General;
    Peter C. Manson, Jr., Pender & Coward; Ronald S. Holloran, Office of the
    City Attorney, on brief), for appellees.
    Before K.K. HALL and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER,
    Senior Circuit Judge.
    PER CURIAM:

    Pinrecko L. Artise appeals from the dismissal of his claim of malicious


    prosecution brought under 42 U.S.C. Secs. 1983 and 1986. He contends that his
    claim is not the typical malicious prosecution claim and therefore the dismissal
    based on his conviction of housing violations was erroneous.

    We disagree. Artise has not alleged facts that would state a malicious
    prosecution claim under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. See Singleton v. City of New
    York, 632 F.2d 185, 194-95 (2d Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 920 (1981)
    (plaintiff must show that prosecution terminated in some way favorable to him).
    Nor has he shown that he was deprived of a protected liberty interest or
    property interest under the Fourteenth Amendment. See Baker v. McCollan,
    443 U.S. 137 (1979).

    Accordingly, we affirm the judgment below. We dispense with oral argument


    because the dispositive issues recently have been decided authoritatively, and
    the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the record.
    AFFIRMED

    You might also like