Alonzo Richardson v. Charles E. Counts

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-7665
ALONZO RICHARDSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CHARLES E. COUNTS,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. David C. Norton, Chief District
Judge. (0:09-cv-01997-DCN)
Submitted: January 13, 2010 Decided: February 2, 2010
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alonzo Richardson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Alonzo Richardson appeals the district court’s order
denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We
have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment* See
Richardson v. Counts, No. 0:09-cv-01997-DCN (D.S.C. filed
Aug. 31, 2009 & entered Sept. 1, 2009). We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
* Although Richardson’s claim that Defendant Counts made
false representations in his application for an arrest warrant
falls under the Fourth Amendment exception noted in Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 n.7 (1994), termination favorable to
the plaintiff in the prior criminal proceeding is an essential
element of a § 1983 claim based on a seizure in violation of the
Fourth Amendment. Lambert v. Williams, 223 F.3d 257, 262 & n.3
(4th Cir. 2000); Brooks v. City of Winston-Salem, 85 F.3d 178,
182-83 (4th Cir. 1996). We accordingly affirm the district
court’s dismissal of Richardson’s constitutional claim on the
ground that Richardson made no allegation of such a favorable
termination.

-- 2 of 2 --