Allen v. Montgomery Ward Co

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT MELANIE D. ALLEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MONTGOMERY WARD & COMPANY, INCORPORATED; ASHEVILLE MALL, INCORPORATED; R.B.R. & S.T., a No. 99-1396 North Carolina Limited Partnership, Defendants-Appellees, and ASHEVILLE L.L.C., a North Carolina Limited Liability Company, Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville.

Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (CA-98-7-1-T) Submitted: September 8, 1999 Decided: October 12, 1999 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. _________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. _________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Robert E. Dungan, Ted F. Mitchell, ROBERT E. DUNGAN, P.A., Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Allan R. Tarleton, Ashe- ville, North Carolina; Ervin L. Ball, Jr., Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellees. _________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). _________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM: Melanie D. Allen appeals the district court judgment granting sum- mary judgment to the Appellees and dismissing her civil rights com- plaint. Allen was detained under suspicion of shoplifting while at a Montgomery Ward department store in the Asheville Mall in Ashe- ville, North Carolina. Allen was arrested and subsequently charged with felony shoplifting. The charges were later dismissed. Allen, a black woman, claimed that Montgomery Ward, Asheville Mall and its partner, R.B.R. & S.T., violated her rights under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981(a), 1985(3) (1994). She also raised pendent state law claims of false imprisonment and malicious prosecution. Finding no revers- ible error, we affirm.

We agree with the district court that, based on the surveillance tape and observations made by security personnel, there was probable cause to detain Allen. We also agree that there was no evidence that any of the Appellees purposefully discriminated against Allen because of her race in violation of § 1981 or§ 1985(3). Because there was probable cause to detain Allen, she failed to establish that any of the Appellees are liable for false imprisonment or malicious prosecu- tion.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Allen v. Montgomery Ward & Co., CA-98-7-1-T (W.D.N.C. Mar. 4, 1999).* We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before us and argument would not aid in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED