* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit



## FILED

April 13, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-30362

Summary Calendar

EUCKLE LEE HUNTER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CITY OF MONROE; ET. AL.,

Defendants,

JOE STEWART, Individually and as Chief of Police;

JIMMY FRIED; MIKE ROWLAND; MICHAEL CALLOWAY,

Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:01-CV-642

--------------------

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Euckle Lee Hunter a ppeals the district court’s grant of

summary judgment in favor of Chief Joe S tewart, Lieutenant Jimmy

Fried, Detective Mike Rowland, and Detective Michael Calloway

(hereinafter, “defendants”) and the dismissal with prejudice of his

false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution claims

against the defendants in their individual capacities. We do notNo. 04-30362

-2-

c onsider Hunter’s argument that the district court erre d in

striking his opposition to the defendants’ summary judgment motion

from the record. We assume for purposes of this appeal that

Hunter’s opposition was considered by the district court.

After conducting a de novo review of the record, we conclude

that there was probable cause to arrest Hunter. Cousin v. Small

,

325 F.3d 627, 637 (5t h Cir. 2003); S orenson v. Ferrie

, 134 F.3d

325, 328 (5th Cir. 1998); see also L A

. R EV

. S TAT

. ANN

. §§ 14:24 (West

1997), 14:134 (West 2004), 40:979 (West 2001). B ecause Hunter

concedes he did not immediately report the incident at the bus

station and given the facts surrounding his other meetings with the

confidential informant, he has not shown that his phone call to

Lieutenant Fried negated Detective Rowland’s conclusion that there

was probable cause to arrest him for be ing a principal to a drug

deal and for malfeasance in office.

The fact that Hunter did not follow the confidential informant

to the informant’s place of business after the informant picked up

the package at the bus station was apparent from Detective

Rowland’s affidavit in support of the state warrant. I n addition,

contrary to Hunter’s argument, our determination on direct appeal

that the evidence did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that

Hunter was guilty of attempted possession with intent to distribute

cocaine did not equate to a determination that there was no

probable cause for an arrest on such a charge. See United States

v. Hunter

, No. 99-30091 (5th Cir. Dec. 13, 1999). Accordingly, weNo. 04-30362

-3-

affirm the district court’s dismissal of Hunter’s false arrest and

false imprisonment claims.

We have held that a claim of ma licious prosecution standing

alone does not violate the United States Constitution. C astellano

v. Fragozo

, 352 F.3d 939, 945 (5th Cir.2003) (en banc). The

district court’s dismissal of Hunter’s malicious prosecution claim

is therefore also aff irmed. Hunter’s conspiracy claim fails

because he has not shown an actual violatio n of his rights or an

agreement by the defendants to commit an illegal act. S ee Arsenaux

v. Roberts , 726 F.2d 1022, 1024 (5th Cir. 1982).

AFFIRMED.