Fuller v. Barrett ( 1999 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
MARVIN FULLER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JODI BARRETT, Officer; GERALD
CARR, Officer; CITY OF NORFOLK,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
No. 99-6359
MELVIN HIGH, Police Officer;
STEVEN HALLENBECK; OFFICER
GURECKI; JOHN DOE, Police
Supervisor; JOHN DOE, Police
Officers involved in arrest in their
individual and official capacities as
officials of Norfolk Police
Department for the City of Norfolk,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge.
(CA-98-130-2)
Submitted: September 28, 1999
Decided: November 4, 1999
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Marvin Fuller, Appellant Pro Se. Gary Alvin Bryant, WILLCOX &
SAVAGE, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Marvin Fuller appeals from a district court judgment entered pursu-
ant to a jury verdict finding in favor of the Defendant police officers
in his action brought under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999),
alleging unlawful arrest, malicious prosecution, and excessive force.
We may reverse a jury verdict only if there is a complete absence of
probative facts to support the conclusions reached by the jury. See
Sherill White Constr., Inc. v. South Carolina Nat'l Bank, 713 F.2d
1047, 1050 (4th Cir. 1983). There was ample evidence presented at
trial from which the jury could conclude that probable cause sup-
ported the Defendants' decision to arrest and prosecute Fuller for
being drunk in public, not the least of which was the testimony of sev-
eral police officers that Fuller displayed many characteristics of an
intoxicated person. Several officers testified that Fuller smelled of
alcohol, that his speech was slurred, his eyes were bloodshot and
watery, and his balance was unsteady. The presence of such evidence
precludes Fuller from prevailing on his false arrest and malicious
prosecution claims. See Porterfield v. Lott, 156 F.3d 563, 568-70 (4th
Cir. 1998). While Fuller disputes the credibility of much of this evi-
dence, credibility determinations lie within the sole province of the
jury. See United States v. Lamar, 75 F.3d 964, 973 (4th Cir. 1996).
There was also evidence from which the jury could reject Fuller's
excessive force claim. Only Fuller testified that any force was used
to effectuate his arrest. While Fuller alleged that he was cuffed too
2
tightly and that he was left alone in a car that was uncomfortably
warm for two hours, several persons present at the relevant times tes-
tified that they did not recall Fuller ever complaining of any discom-
fort the night of his arrest. Moreover, the Defendants submitted
medical expert testimony that Fuller suffered no serious injury.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. We dis-
pense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3