Ruttenberg v. Jones , 375 F. App'x 298 ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-1438
DAVID M. RUTTENBERG; JUDITH G. RUTTENBERG; TRIPLE D
ENTERPRISES, INC.,
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 Decided: April 21, 2010
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, WILKINSON, Circuit Judge, and
HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 hall that they formerly owned. See 42
U.S.C. § 1983. As is relevant here, Appellants’ suit alleges
multiple federal and state-law claims against the City of
Manassas Park (“the City”), its chief of police, two police
detectives, and the mayor of Manassas Park. The district court
dismissed all of the federal claims with prejudice and dismissed
the state claims without prejudice. See Ruttenberg v. Jones,
464 F. Supp. 2d 536, 551 (E.D. 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 claim was that the search, which was conducted in
conjunction with a multi-jurisdictional drug task 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 of material fact regarding
3
whether the search was constitutionally reasonable. See
Ruttenberg v. Jones, 603 F. Supp. 2d 844, 864-70 (E.D. Va.
2009). 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. See id. at 872. Having disposed of Appellants’ lone
remaining federal claim, the district court again dismissed
Appellants’ state-law claims without prejudice. 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 search of the pool hall was constitutionally
unreasonable. 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