Francis Hall v. Shawn Efimenco, No. 14-1257 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1257 FRANCIS GERARD HALL, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. SHAWN R. EFIMENCO, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:13-cv-00689-CMH-IDD) Submitted: October 29, 2014 Decided: November 4, 2014 Before MOTZ and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dale Edwin Sanders, Alexandria, Virginia; Patricia A. Smith, LAW OFFICES OF PATRICIA A. SMITH, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellants. Alexander Francuzenko, Broderick C. Dunn, COOK CRAIG & FRANCUZENKO, PLLC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Francis Gerard Hall appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendant, a Stafford County Sheriff’s Deputy, in this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012). Hall alleged that his constitutional rights were violated when he was arrested pursuant to a warrant obtained by Defendant that was not supported by probable cause. We “review de novo a district court’s award of summary judgment, viewing the facts and inferences reasonably drawn therefrom favorable to the nonmoving party.” in the light most Woollard v. Gallagher, 712 F.3d 865, 873 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 422 (2013). “Summary judgment is appropriate only if the record shows ‘that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)). We have reviewed the record and find, based on the undisputed material facts, that the district court correctly found that probable cause supported the arrest warrant obtained by Defendant, as the facts and circumstances within Defendant’s knowledge supported his reasonable belief that Hall impersonated a fire marshal in violation of Virginia law. the court properly found that Defendant was had Thus, entitled to qualified immunity. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) protection (noting that 2 of qualified immunity applies regardless of whether government official’s error constitutes a mistake of law, fact or a mistake based on a mixed question of law and fact). Accordingly, we affirm the grant of summary judgment to Defendant for the reasons stated by the district court. Hall v. Efimenco, No. 1:13-cv-00689-CMH-IDD (E.D. Va. Feb. 21, 2014). facts and materials legal before We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately this and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
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.
