Court Opinion

ID: 999845
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:31:25.186291+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:11:45.098623
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

KEITH WILLIAM DEBLASIO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

GARY LOWMAN, Special Agent; GREG
                                                                      No. 99-6146
MROZ, Special Agent; DENNIS
LYNCH, ATSAIC; STEVEN W.
MASON, SAIC, sued in their
individual and official capacities,
Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge.
(CA-96-2997-JFM)

Submitted: June 22, 1999

Decided: September 20, 1999

Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and HAMILTON,
Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished per
curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Keith William DeBlasio, Appellant Pro Se. Albert David Copperthite,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Keith William DeBlasio appeals the district court's order granting
summary judgment in favor of the Defendants in his Bivens* action
alleging numerous civil rights violations. We have reviewed the
record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error as
to the majority of DeBlasio's claims. We find, however, that the dis-
trict court failed to address DeBlasio's claim that Defendant Lynch
conducted a search of his car without his consent or any other valid
exception to the warrant requirement. Accordingly, we remand this
claim for a factual determination. We also conclude that a genuine
issue of material fact exists as to DeBlasio's claim that his consent to
search his residence was the result of unlawful coercion on the parts
of Defendants Lowman and Mason. Accordingly, while we affirm the
remaining claims on the reasoning of the district court, see DeBlasio
v. Lowman, No. CA-96-2997-JFM (D. Md. Jan. 12, 1999), we remand
DeBlasio's claim regarding the search of his car, as to Defendant
Lynch, and vacate the district court's order regarding DeBlasio's con-
sent to search claim as it relates to Defendants Lowman and Mason,
and remand that claim to the district court for a factual determination.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED
_________________________________________________________________
*Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,
403 U.S. 388 (1971).

                    2