United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division
J. Conrad, Jr., United States District Judge
MATTER is before the Court to memorialize the
Court's ruling at the hearing on June 10, 2019. As
ordered and for the reasons stated in open court at the
hearing on June 10, 2019 before the undersigned, and herein,
the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion for
Summary Judgment, (Doc. No. 18), on all claims.
no material facts are in dispute, and Plaintiff has failed to
establish that Defendant lacked probable cause for her arrest
warrants, Defendant is entitled to summary judgment in its
favor on Plaintiff's federal claim under 42 U.S.C. §
1983 for an alleged violation of her Fourth Amendment right
to be free from unreasonable seizure,  and
Plaintiff's state-law claims for malicious prosecution
and false imprisonment.
the resisting misdemeanor was not the crime of the century,
not the conduct the most egregious, nonetheless, two
magistrate judges found probable cause existed to issue
Plaintiff's arrest warrants under N.C. Gen. Stat. §
14-223. And even if the Court were to find that Trooper
White's procurement of the arrest warrants lacked
probable cause, Plaintiff's conviction in state District
Court after her first arrest establishes probable cause as a
matter of law, regardless of the fact that the matter was
subsequently dismissed in Superior Court.
Plaintiff's assault and battery claims, summary judgment
in favor of Defendant is appropriate because Plaintiff failed
to offer more than a scintilla of evidence to support her
claims, let alone enough evidence for a reasonable jury to
find against Defendant.
even if the Court were to find that Plaintiffs constitutional
rights were violated in this case, qualified immunity would
shield Defendant from suit because Plaintiffs constitutional
rights were not “clearly established” at the time
such that a reasonably prudent officer in Defendant's
position would have known of those rights. See Harlow v.
Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982).
IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, (Doc. No. 18),
is GRANTED; and
Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.
 Summary judgment is proper when there
is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c);
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23
 “An arrest is a seizure of the
person.” Rogers v. Pendleton, 249 F.3d 279,
290 (4th Cir. 2001). “[T]he general rule is that
‘Fourth Amendment seizures are “reasonable”
only if based on probable cause.'” Id.
(quoting Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200, 213
(1979)). Here, because Plaintiff's arrest warrants were
based on probable cause, her seizure was reasonable, and thus
Plaintiff's § 1983 claim must fail.
 One element of a malicious prosecution
claim is “lack of probable cause for the initiation of
the earlier proceeding.” Hoover v. McDowell
Cty, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 12719, at *6-7 (citing
Best v. Duke Univ., 448 S.E.2d 506, 510 ( N.C.
1994)). “Involuntary restraint and its unlawfulness are
the two essential elements of [false imprisonment].”
Parrish v. Boysell Mfg. Co., 188 S.E. 817, 820 (
N.C. 1936) (quoting State v. Lunsford, 81 N.C. 528
(1879)). “Probable cause is an absolute bar to a claim