Thompson v. Huntington Police

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
LAWRENCE THOMPSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
No. 96-7537
HUNTINGTON POLICE DEPARTMENT;
ALLAN RHORIG, Officer; J. T. COMBS,
Officer,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington.
Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge.
(CA-96-761-3)
Submitted: January 7, 1997
Decided: February 25, 1997
Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and
PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.
_________________________________________________________________
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Lawrence Thompson, Appellant Pro Se.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing without
prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint alleging false arrest,
false imprisonment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. In
his complaint, Appellant alleged that he was wrongly arrested and
charged with distributing crack cocaine even though police found no
drugs on his person. In a subsequent filing with the court, Appellant
attached a memorandum stating that he was assaulted by correctional
officers while incarcerated before his acquittal, subjected to fights and
arguments with inmates, subjected to racism by the correctional staff,
and denied treatment for his diabetes. In accordance with the recom-
mendation of the magistrate judge, the district court found that there
was no legal or factual basis to the claims and dismissed the com-
plaint without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A.§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)
(West Supp. Sept. 1996, Pamphlet 3).
We have held that an allegation of arrest without probable cause
states a cognizable claim under § 1983. Brooks v. City of Winston-
Salem, 85 F.3d 178 (4th Cir. 1996); Street v. Surdyka, 492 F.2d 368(4th Cir. 1974). Moreover, allegations of assault by correctional offi-
cers and denial of medical treatment state cognizable claims as well.
See, e.g. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976); United States v.
Cobb, 905 F.2d 784 (4th Cir. 1990). Accordingly, we find that Appel-
lant's complaint is not factually or legally frivolous on its face. We
therefore vacate the dismissal order and remand this matter for further
proceedings.
We deny the motion for appointment of counsel and dispense 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.
VACATED AND REMANDED