Larry D. Marvel v. ROBERT SNYDER and BRUCE BURTON

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 01-3360
___________
LARRY D. MARVEL
v.
ROBERT SNYDER and BRUCE BURTON,
Appellants
___________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware
District Court Judge: The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet
(Action No. 99-cv-00442)
___________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
April 2, 2002
Before: SLOVITER, FUENTES, and MICHEL, Circuit Judges
(Opinion Filed: April 23, 2002 )
________________________
OPINION OF THE COURT
________________________ FUENTES, Circuit Judge:
Plaintiff Larry Marvel ("Marvel") filed a pro se complaint in the United States
Court for the District of Delaware against the Delaware Correctional Center Warden
Robert Snyder and Correctional Lieutenant Bruce Burton on July 12, 1999, alleging a
claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 for a violation of his Fourteenth Amendment right to
due process. Marvel claimed that he had been subjected to a retaliatory cell search, and
subsequently removed from his prison job. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss,
which the District Court treated as one for summary judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)
(allowing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to be converted to one for summary judgment when the
parties attach materials outside of the pleadings to their papers).
The District Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion in a
Memorandum Opinion and Order issued on July 24, 2001. Pertinent to this appeal, the
District Court rejected defendants’ proffered defense of qualified immunity. Summary
judgment is appropriate where "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the
moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). "In
considering a motion for summary judgment, a court must ’draw[ ] all reasonable
inferences from the underlying facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving
party.’" Bailey v. United Airlines 279 F.3d 194, 198 (3d Cir. 2002) (quoting Battaglia v.
McKendry, 233 F.3d 720, 722 (3d Cir. 2000) (quotations omitted)). In our review of this
case, we will employ "the same test as the District Court should use in the first instance,
to determine if there are any issues of material fact which would allow the issue to go to
trial." Sharrar v. Felsing, 128 F.3d 810, 817 (3d Cir. 1997) (internal citations omitted).
As a pro se plaintiff who is incarcerated, Marvel will be "held to less stringent

-- 1 of 2 --

pleading standards and we will afford him a liberal interpretation of our procedural rules."
Todaro v. Bowman, 872 F.2d 43, 44 (3d Cir. 1989).
Applying the relevant tests, we fail to discern any error in the District Court’s
decision. Accordingly, we will affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in the District
Court’s thorough and well written opinion.
TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT:
Kindly file the foregoing Opinion.
/s/ Julio M. Fuentes
Circuit Judg

-- 2 of 2 --