UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

BRUCE LEON ROBINSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

JAMES R. METTS, Sheriff of

Lexington County; GLENN OXENDINE,

Detective; ADRIAN BOST, Captain;

DUANE R. PEAKE, Sergeant;

ANTHONY PLANTE, Detective; JIMMY

SMITH, Detective; LARRY HARRISON,

Detective; JIM GRAHAM, Detective;

KEN CORRELL, Detective, in their No. 97-1527

individual capacities,

Defendants-Appellees,

and

LEXINGTON COUNTY, a political

subdivision; LEXINGTON COUNTY

SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; KIM D.

FEASTER; JAMES E. HARRIS, Sergeant;

JOHN DOE; RICHARD ROE; STATE OF

SOUTH CAROLINA,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia.

Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge.

(CA-95-1866-3-23)

Argued: January 29, 1998

Decided: August 17, 1999
Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and RUSSELL,*

Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Thomas Keith Fowler, Jr., Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellant. Thomas C.R. Legare, Jr., NEXSEN, PRUET, JACOBS &

POLLARD, L.L.P., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. ON

BRIEF: Wilburn Brewer, Jr., NEXSEN, PRUET, JACOBS & POLLARD, L.L.P., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Bruce Leon Robinson brought this action against various South

Carolina law enforcement officers2 alleging that they were guilty of,

_________________________________________________________________

*Senior Judge Russell heard oral argument in this case but died prior

to the time the decision was filed. The decision is filed by a quorum of

the panel. 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).

2 Robinson named Lexington County, South Carolina, Sheriff James R.

Metts and Lexington County Detention Center employees Detective

Glenn Oxendine, Captain Adrian Bost, Sergeant Duane R. Peake, Detective Anthony Plante, Detective Jimmy Smith, Detective Larry Harrison,

Detective Jim Graham, and Detective Ken Correll as defendants in this

action. For ease of reference, we refer to defendants collectively as "Appellees."

 2
inter alia, illegally searching and seizing him, engaging in a civil conspiracy, and maliciously prosecuting him. Robinson now appeals the

decision of the district court granting Appellees' motion for summary

judgment. We affirm.

I.

In 1992, when the events underlying this action occurred, Robinson

was employed by the Lexington County Detention Center (LCDC) as

a corrections officer. An investigation of marijuana being smuggled

into the LCDC led to the questioning of inmate Gary Martin. Martin

informed LCDC officials that two LCDC correctional officers, Robinson and Harry Perry, were bringing contraband--in the form of cigarettes and marijuana--into the facility with the assistance of Martin's

wife. According to Martin, his wife would place contraband on the

automobile used jointly by Robinson and Perry while the vehicle was

in the LCDC parking lot. Martin alleged that Robinson and Perry

would then bring the contraband into the LCDC during their shift.

Pursuant to information provided by Martin, Appellees prepared a

package containing a carton of cigarettes, marijuana, three $20.00

bills, cigarette lighters, and rolling papers. On June 18, 1992, Appellees placed the package in the wheel well of the vehicle used by Robinson and Perry in the LCDC parking lot, as directed by Martin, and

established surveillance. During the vigil, Martin notified officers that

Robinson and Perry had told him that they knew the contraband was

there and that they would bring it to him. No one approached the

vehicle until the following morning when Robinson and Perry went

off duty and left the LCDC.

The automobile was kept under observation after it exited the parking lot. The vehicle stopped on an interstate entrance ramp; Perry

exited, retrieved the package from the wheel well, and again entered

the automobile. Shortly thereafter, the vehicle was stopped, and Robinson and Perry were searched and arrested. Three $20.00 bills and

marijuana were discovered in Perry's pockets, and the remaining contraband was on the floorboard of the automobile. 3

_________________________________________________________________

3 Perry is not a party to this action.

 3
A grand jury indicted Robinson of several violations of state law

including conspiracy to possess marijuana and misconduct in office.

On the day before Robinson's scheduled trial, the state court heard

Robinson's motion to dismiss the charges on the basis that probable

cause was lacking for the search and seizure. Following an evidentiary hearing, the state court ruled that probable cause had existed and

denied Robinson's motion to dismiss. Robinson thereafter entered a

plea pursuant to an agreement permitting him to enter a pretrial intervention program.

Robinson subsequently brought the present action claiming that his

rights under federal and state law were violated by Appellees because,

inter alia, they lacked probable cause for the search, seizure, and

prosecution. The district court granted summary judgment to Appellees, ruling that Robinson was estopped from arguing that probable

cause was lacking due to the contrary determination by the state court

during Robinson's criminal proceedings. Furthermore, the district

court concluded that Appellees were entitled to qualified immunity

because a reasonable officer could have believed that probable cause

was present.

II.

Robinson maintains that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to Appellees, principally contending that he is not

estopped from challenging the probable cause determination of the

state court and that probable cause was lacking. Having had the benefit of oral argument and the parties' briefs, and after careful consideration of the record and applicable law, we conclude that the district

court correctly decided the issues before it. Accordingly, we affirm on

the reasoning of the district court. See Robinson v. Metts, No. 3:95-

1866-23 (D.S.C. Mar. 17, 1997).

AFFIRMED

 4