David Ruttenberg v. Frank Jones, No. 09-1438 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1438 DAVID M. RUTTENBERG; ENTERPRISES, INC., JUDITH G. RUTTENBERG; TRIPLE D Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. FRANK JONES, Mayor of Manassas Park, Virginia, in his official and individual capacities; JOHN EVANS, Chief of Police of Manassas Park, Virginia, in his official and individual capacities; DETECTIVE L, Manassas Park Police Detective, in his official and individual capacities; CITY OF MANASSAS PARK, VIRGINIA; DETECTIVE W, Prince William County Police Detective, in his official and individual capacities, Defendants Appellees, and THOMAS L. KIFER, in his official and individual capacities, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:06-cv-00639-TSE-JFA) Argued: March 23, 2010 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Decided: WILKINSON, Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. April 21, 2010 Circuit Judge, and ARGUED: Neil Harris Ruttenberg, Beltsville, Maryland, for Appellants. John David Wilburn, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, McLean, Virginia, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Anand V. Ramana, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, McLean, Virginia, for Appellees Frank Jones, John Evans, Detective L, and City of Manassas Park, Virginia. M. Alice Rowan, OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY FOR THE COUNTY OF PRINCE WILLIAM, Prince William, Virginia, for Appellee Detective W. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: David M. Ruttenberg, Judith G. Ruttenberg, and Triple D Enterprises, Inc. (collectively, Appellants ) appeal the grant of summary judgment against them in their § 1983 suit challenging the warrantless administrative search of a Manassas Park, Virginia pool U.S.C. § 1983. hall that they formerly See owned. 42 As is relevant here, Appellants suit alleges multiple federal Manassas Park and ( the state-law City ), its claims chief against of the police, detectives, and the mayor of Manassas Park. City two of police The district court dismissed all of the federal claims with prejudice and dismissed the state claims without prejudice. 464 F. Supp. 2d 536, 551 (E.D. See Ruttenberg v. Jones, Va. 2006). On appeal, we affirmed the dismissal of all but one of the federal claims and remanded for further proceedings. See Ruttenberg v. Jones, 283 Fed. Appx. 121, 124 (4th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). The remaining federal conducted claim conjunction was with that a the search, which multi-jurisdictional was drug task in force s attempts to arrest several individuals suspected of engaging in drug transactions at the pool hall, was unreasonably threatening in light of its size, scope, duration and manner. On remand, the district court granted summary judgment against Appellants on that claim, determining that Appellants failed to create a genuine issue 3 of material fact regarding whether the Ruttenberg 2009). search v. was constitutionally 603 F. Jones, Supp. 2d See reasonable. 844, 864-70 (E.D. Va. The district court alternatively concluded that even assuming that the operation was constitutionally unreasonable, Appellants had not forecasted evidence sufficient to hold the City liable or the chief of police and one of the police detectives individually liable for the constitutional violation. See id. at 870-73. To the extent that the police chief and the officers were sued in their official capacities, the district court dismissed the claim as duplicative of the claim against the City. remaining See id. at 872. federal claim, Having disposed of Appellants lone the district court Appellants state-law claims without prejudice. again dismissed See id. at 873- 74. Appellants now argue on appeal that the district court erred in granting summary judgment against them regarding their claim that the unreasonable. search of the pool hall was constitutionally Having considered the parties briefs, the joint appendix, and the oral arguments of counsel, we find no error and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. AFFIRMED 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
