Case ID: f-appx_363/html/0219-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Alonzo RICHARDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles E. COUNTS, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 09-7665.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Jan. 13, 2010.
    Decided: Feb. 2, 2010.
    
      Alonzo Richardson, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

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, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (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.