OPINION OF THE COURT

In September 2001, Warren Cundiff, a convicted sex offender, agreed to undergo random drug and alcohol testing as a condition of his release from prison. 1 In June 2002, Cundiff tested positive for drug use in preliminary testing at his parole office, 2 and was consequently arrested and imprisoned for violating N.J. Stat. § 2C:43-6.4(d). 3 Cundiff remained in prison pending confirmation of the positive results by an independent laboratory. Two weeks after the preliminary positives, the parole *239 office received negative results from the laboratory, and Cundiff was released.

In October 2004, Cundiff filed a complaint in federal court against various state defendants, alleging, inter alia, false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and abuse of process. In a thorough and well-reasoned opinion, the District Court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on all of Cundiff s claims.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and exercise plenary review over the District Court’s grant of summary judgment. Mortellite v. Novartis Crop Protection, Inc., 460 F.3d 483, 488 n. 3 (3d Cir. 2006). Having carefully reviewed Cundiffs arguments on appeal, we will affirm for substantially the reasons set forth in the District Court’s opinion. In doing so, we note that Cundiff challenges the parole office’s use of a “preliminary” drug test in deciding to arrest him for violating the conditions of his release. Cundiff does not, however, take issue with the test’s reliability, and instead asserts that a variety of additional factors should have alerted the parole office that he was not using drugs. For example, Cundiff claims that he had no history of illegal drug use, that he adamantly denied using drugs, and that he did not appear to be on drugs when he tested positive. In spite of these considerations, we agree with the District Court that the two reliable, objective tests for drug use gave the parole office probable cause to arrest Cundiff.