Jo Spence v. County of Arlington, Virginia, No. 18-1002 (4th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1002 JO SPENCE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. COUNTY OF ARLINGTON VIRGINIA; POLICE CHIEF M. JAY FARR; SERGEANT KIM JONES; OFFICER LAUREN FEDEN; OFFICER JAY MATTICE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District Judge. (1:17-cv-00665-LO-TCB) Submitted: May 24, 2018 Decided: June 6, 2018 Before MOTZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jo Spence, Appellant Pro Se. Ara Loris Tramblian, COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Arlington, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jo Spence appeals the district court’s order denying relief on her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. * Spence v. County of Arlington, No. 1:17-cv-00665-LO-TCB (E.D. Va. Nov. 30, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED * “To state a claim under § 1983 a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and must show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.” Loftus v. Bobzien, 848 F.3d 278, 284–85 (4th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted). Even assuming the responding officers acted under color of state law, we find that the district court properly dismissed Spence’s complaint on the ground that she failed to allege a colorable violation of a right secured by the Constitutional and laws of the United States. 2

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.