Case Name: Shannon RIVERA, Margaret O'Rama, her mother, Appellants v. HOPATCONG BOROUGH POLICE DEPARTMENT; Joseph Costello; Sussex County Prosecutor's Office
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-31
Citations: 420 F. App'x 154
Docket Number: No. 10-1582
Parties: Shannon RIVERA, Margaret O’Rama, her mother, Appellants v. HOPATCONG BOROUGH POLICE DEPARTMENT; Joseph Costello; Sussex County Prosecutor’s Office.
Judges: BEFORE: FUENTES, SMITH, and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 420
Pages: 154–155

Head Matter:
Shannon RIVERA, Margaret O’Rama, her mother, Appellants v. HOPATCONG BOROUGH POLICE DEPARTMENT; Joseph Costello; Sussex County Prosecutor’s Office.
No. 10-1582.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) March 25, 2011.
Filed: March 31, 2011.
Robert A. Scirocco, Esq., Budd Lake, NJ, for Appellants.
Peter J. Lamont, Esq., James M. McCarthy, Esq., McCarthy & Jennerich, Rutherford, NJ, for Hopatcong Borough Police Department; Joseph Costello; Sussex County Prosecutor’s Office.
BEFORE: FUENTES, SMITH, and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
GREENBERG, Circuit Judge.
Shannon Rivera and her mother Margaret O'Rama appeal to this Court from an order for summary judgment entered in the District Court on February 3, 2010, in favor of the appellees in accordance with that Court's opinion of that day. This action arose out of appellees' involvement in the prosecution of Rivera in the New Jersey state courts on charges relating to the dissemination of a nude photograph of a minor on the Internet. Rivera was acquitted of the charges in juvenile court. Appellants asserted both federal and state claims.
The District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 1343 and 1367 and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary jurisdiction on this appeal, see Santos ex rel. Beato v. United States, 559 F.3d 189, 193 (3d Cir.2009), and therefore can affirm only if appellees can show "that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and [they are] entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a).
After our review of this matter we are in full accord with the District Court's disposition of this case and can add nothing substantial to its opinion. Consequently, we will affirm the order of February 3, 2010, for the reasons it set forth in its opinion. The parties will bear their own costs on this appeal.