The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
00-2415•James Martin v. LEON BLACK, Detective, Prince William County Police Department
00-2415Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitMar 15, 2001
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-2415
JAMES MARTIN; JUAN WILKINS,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
versus
LEON BLACK, Detective, Prince William County
Police Department,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY; CHRISTOPHER DOYLE
CARNEY; PAUL DENVER, The Travelers Insurance
Company; SHERRY BURDETTE, The Travelers In-
surance Company,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
Judge. (CA-99-1673-A)
Submitted: March 8, 2001 Decided: March 15, 2001
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
John M. DiJoseph, KAVRUKOV, MEHROTRA & DIJOSEPH, Arlington, Vir-
ginia, for Appellants. Sharon E. Pandak, County Attorney, Ross G.
Horton, Senior Assistant County Attorney, Prince William, Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
James Martin and Juan Wilkins appeal the district court’s
order granting summary judgment in favor of Detective Leon Black,
the Defendant in this civil action. We have reviewed the record
and the district court’s opinion rendered from the bench and find
no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of
the district court, specifically, that Black was entitled to quali-
fied immunity because his arrest of Martin and Wilkins was sup-
ported by probable cause, notwithstanding the ultimate dismissal of
the charges after trial. Martin v. Black, No. CA-99-1673-A (E.D.
Va. filed Sept. 29, 2000; entered Oct. 2, 2000). We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate-
ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.