UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1257
FRANCIS GERARD HALL,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
SHAWN R. EFIMENCO,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:13-cv-00689-CMH-IDD)
Submitted: October 29, 2014 Decided: November 4, 2014
Before MOTZ and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dale Edwin Sanders, Alexandria, Virginia; Patricia A. Smith, LAW
OFFICES OF PATRICIA A. SMITH, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellants. Alexander Francuzenko, Broderick C. Dunn, COOK
CRAIG & FRANCUZENKO, PLLC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Francis Gerard Hall appeals the district court’s order
granting summary judgment to Defendant, a Stafford County
Sheriff’s Deputy, in this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012).
Hall alleged that his constitutional rights were violated when
he was arrested pursuant to a warrant obtained by Defendant that
was not supported by probable cause. We “review de novo a
district court’s award of summary judgment, viewing the facts
and inferences reasonably drawn therefrom in the light most
favorable to the nonmoving party.” Woollard v. Gallagher, 712
F.3d 865, 873 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 422 (2013).
“Summary judgment is appropriate only if the record shows ‘that
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’” Id.
(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)).
We have reviewed the record and find, based on the
undisputed material facts, that the district court correctly
found that probable cause supported the arrest warrant obtained
by Defendant, as the facts and circumstances within Defendant’s
knowledge supported his reasonable belief that Hall had
impersonated a fire marshal in violation of Virginia law. Thus,
the court properly found that Defendant was entitled to
qualified immunity. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231
(2009) (noting that protection of qualified immunity applies
2
regardless of whether government official’s error constitutes a
mistake of law, fact or a mistake based on a mixed question of
law and fact). Accordingly, we affirm the grant of summary
judgment to Defendant for the reasons stated by the district
court. Hall v. Efimenco, No. 1:13-cv-00689-CMH-IDD (E.D. Va.
Feb. 21, 2014). We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3