Rose Mary Delgado v. Rodney Hajicek, etc., et al, No. 08-2560 (8th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 08-2560 ___________ Rose Mary Delgado, * * Appellant, * * v. * * Rodney Hajicek, Badge No. 556, a * Appeal from the United States detective and police officer employed * District Court for the by the East Grand Forks Police * District of Minnesota. Department in both his individual and * official capacities; Chris Olson, a * [UNPUBLISHED] police officer, employed by the East * Grand Forks Police Department in both * his individual and official capacities, * * Appellees. * ___________ Submitted: February 13, 2009 Filed: March 25, 2009 ___________ Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, MELLOY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges ___________ PER CURIAM. Rose Mary Delgado sued detective Rodney William Hajicek, and others, alleging deprivation of her Fourth Amendment rights. The district court1 granted 1 The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. summary judgment to defendants. Delgado v. Hajicek, No. 07-2186, 2008 WL 2042606 (D. Minn. May 12, 2008). Delgado appeals with respect to Hajicek. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. ยง 1291, this court affirms. This court reviews a district court s grant of summary judgment de novo. Davenport v. University of Arkansas Board of Trustees, 553 F.3d 1110, 1112 (8th Cir. 2009). A moving party is entitled to summary judgment when the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, establishes that no genuine issue of material fact exists, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. King v. Hardesty, 517 F.3d 1049, 1056 (8th Cir. 2008). Delgado raises two issues on appeal: (1) Hajicek violated her Fourth Amendment rights by issuing a theft citation without probable cause; and (2) Hajicek violated her Fourth Amendment rights because he materially misled the Polk County Court, leading to the issuance of a warrant for her arrest. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties briefs, this court finds no error in the district court s findings of fact or conclusions of law. Therefore, this court affirms for the reasons stated by the district court in its thorough and well-reasoned opinion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -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.
