Francis Hall v. Shawn Efimenco

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1257

FRANCIS GERARD HALL,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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