Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01490/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01490-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
L. Jackson
Appellee
Michael McCloud
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1490

MICHAEL MCCLOUD,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

L. JACKSON, Police Officer,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Newport News. Mark S. Davis, District 

Judge. (4:14-cv-00101-MSD-LRL)

Submitted: September 28, 2015 Decided: September 30, 2015

Before WILKINSON, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael McCloud, Appellant Pro Se. Adonica Baine, Darlene P. 

Bradberry, OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1490 Doc: 10 Filed: 09/30/2015 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael McCloud appeals the district court’s order granting 

the Defendant’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss his 

42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record 

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for 

substantially the reasons stated by the district court.∗ See

McCloud v. Jackson, No. 4:14-cv-00101-MSD-LRL (E.D. Va. Apr. 3, 

2015). 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

 ∗ We agree that McCloud’s complaint failed to state a 

plausible claim for relief, and Defendant’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 

12(b)(6) motion was properly granted on this basis. McCloud 

claimed the Defendant did not have probable cause for a traffic 

stop that resulted in McCloud being charged with and convicted 

of displaying a counterfeit safety inspection sticker. However, 

the Defendant was not required to have probable cause for the 

investigatory stop but only a reasonable basis to suspect him of 

breaking the law. See Heien v. North Carolina, 135 S. Ct. 530, 

536 (2014). The complaint failed to state a plausible claim 

because it did not contain sufficient factual allegations for a 

court to infer that the Defendant did not have such reasonable 

suspicion when he stopped McCloud. We note, however, that this 

claim was not barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), 

because the conviction only resulted in a fine. See Covey v. 

Assessor of Ohio Cnty., 777 F.3d 186, 197 (4th Cir. 2015). 

Appeal: 15-1490 Doc: 10 Filed: 09/30/2015 Pg: 2 of 2