NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

________

No. 11-3425

_________

WILLIAM J. DONOHUE,

 Appellant

v.

JEFFREY RINEER; 

GEORGE CRONIN

________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. No. 1-10-cv-01324)

District Judge: Honorable A. Richard Caputo

_______

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

June 25, 2012

Before: SLOVITER, CHAGARES, and JORDAN, Circuit Judges

(Filed: June 26, 2012 )

______

OPINION

______
2

SLOVITER, Circuit Judge.

William Donohue was acquitted of murder and conspiracy charges in connection 

with the death of his mother, Bernadette Lieben. Donohue later filed suit under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that investigating officers Jeffrey Rineer and George Cronin 

maliciously prosecuted him in violation of the Fourth Amendment.1

 The District Court 

granted summary judgment in favor of Rineer and Cronin, holding that (1) Donohue 

failed to show a lack of probable cause to initiate a criminal proceeding against him, and 

(2) Donohue introduced no evidence that Rineer and Cronin “acted maliciously or with 

an intent other than to bring the plaintiff to justice.” App. at 23. Donohue timely 

appealed.2

Donohue argues that the District Court erred by concluding that there was 

probable cause to initiate his criminal proceedings. However, as Appellees correctly 

highlight, we need not reach this issue because the District Court’s decision rests on an 

alternative ground. “To prove malicious prosecution under Section 1983, a plaintiff must 

show that: (1) the defendants initiated a criminal proceeding; (2) the criminal proceeding 

ended in plaintiff’s favor; (3) the proceeding was initiated without probable cause; (4) the 

defendants acted maliciously or for a purpose other than bringing the plaintiff to justice; 

and (5) the plaintiff suffered deprivation of liberty consistent with the concept of seizure 

 1 Rineer and Cronin filed a criminal complaint against Donohue, charging him 

with first and third degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder. The officers 

applied to a magistrate for an arrest warrant and supported their application with an 

affidavit of probable cause. 

2 The District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. We have 

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
3

as a consequence of a legal proceeding.” Estate of Smith v. Marasco, 318 F.3d 497, 521 

(3d Cir. 2003). Here, Donohue does not challenge the District Court’s holding that he 

failed to produce any evidence suggesting that Appellees acted maliciously, thus waiving 

the issue.3

 3 Donohue incorrectly states in his opening brief that the District Court “focused 

exclusively on the probable cause element.” Appellant’s Br. at 11. However, the Court 

relied on elements three (probable cause) and four (malicious intent) as independent 

reasons to dismiss Donohue’s Section 1983 claim. Donohue failed to file a reply brief

with this court addressing the waiver issue.

 See United States v. Pelullo, 399 F.3d 197, 222 (3d Cir. 2005) (“It is well 

settled that an appellant’s failure to identify or argue an issue in his opening brief 

constitutes waiver of that issue on appeal.”); Kauthar SDN BHD v. Sternberg, 149 F.3d 

659, 668 (7th Cir. 1998) (“[I]n situations in which there is one or more alternative 

holdings on an issue, . . . failure to address one of the holdings results in a waiver of any 

claim of error with respect to the court’s decision on that issue.”), abrogated on other 

grounds by Morrison v. Nat’l Australia Bank Ltd., 130 S. Ct. 2869 (2010). Because the 

lack of evidence showing malicious intent is an adequate and independent ground for the 

District Court’s judgment, we will affirm.