Case Name: Scott LINDENBAUM, Appellant v. David ERENIUS, In his Individual Capacity; Warminster Township
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-06-23
Citations: 433 F. App'x 119
Docket Number: No. 10-3102
Parties: Scott LINDENBAUM, Appellant v. David ERENIUS, In his Individual Capacity; Warminster Township.
Judges: Before: BARRY, AMBRO, and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 433
Pages: 119–120

Head Matter:
Scott LINDENBAUM, Appellant v. David ERENIUS, In his Individual Capacity; Warminster Township.
No. 10-3102.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) June 23, 2011.
Filed June 23, 2011.
Ralph E. Lamar, IV, Esq., Philadelphia, PA, for Appellant.
Christopher P. Boyle, Sr., Esq., Joseph J. Santarone, Jr., Esq., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, King of Prussia, PA, Walter F. Kawalec, III, Esq., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Cherry Hill, NJ, for Appellees.
Before: BARRY, AMBRO, and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
OPINION
AMBRO, Circuit Judge.
Scott Lindenbaum was arrested for making terroristic threats, harassment, and conspiracy to promote or facilitate the crime of terroristic threats. On appeal, he argues that the police officer who arrested him, Defendant David Erenius, did not have probable cause to believe that he had committed a crime and, therefore, violated his Fourth Amendment right under the United States Constitution to be free from unreasonable seizures. He also contends that Officer Erenius is not entitled to qualified immunity.
The District Court, per Judge Slomsky, dealt thoroughly with Lindenbaum's claims. As we have nothing to add to the Court's analysis, we simply note that, under our applicable plenary standard of review, see, e.g., In re Ins. Brokerage Antitrust Litig., 618 F.3d 300, 314 (3d Cir. 2010), and because reviewing courts accord significant deference to a magistrate's finding of probable cause to arrest, see, e.g., Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 236, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983), the facts here amply support the District Court's conclusions. Accordingly, we affirm.