Glaspie v. Loomis Fargo & Co.

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH CIRCUIT July 24, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-31028
Summary Calendar
MARVIN GLASPIE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
LOOMIS FARGO & CO.; UNIDENTIFIED PARTY,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Lousiana
(2:04-CV-2811)
Before DAVIS, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Claiming genuine issues of material fact as to whether Loomis
Fargo & Co. could cause his theft prosecution, Marvin Glaspie
contests the summary judgment dismissing his malicious-prosecution
claim.
The dispute arose while Glaspie was employed as the messenger
on a three-man crew transporting currency for Loomis Fargo. As
messenger, Glaspie was responsible for loading and unloading the
currency and checking it in with Loomis Fargo at the end of the
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
route. While driving between pickup and drop-off locations, he
would sit alone in the back of the armored truck with the currency.
Upon reaching the unloading point on an assigned route from
Jackson, Mississippi, to New Orleans, Louisiana, Glaspie and the
money handler at the drop-off location observed the bag holding a
$190,000 deposit was ripped and torn. In the presence of security
cameras, the bag was sealed, and the money handler took sole
possession of the bag. The bag was found to contain $40,000 less
than the amount verified at the pick-up location.
Loomis Fargo notified the New Orleans Police Department (NOPD)
of the theft and completed a loss report, identifying employees
associated with the currency’s transportation. The NOPD conducted
an investigation of those employees. Glaspie refused to cooperate.
After sending him a notification letter, Loomis Fargo terminated
Glaspie due to his noncompliance with company policy requiring
cooperation with police investigations. Shortly thereafter, he was
arrested for theft but never prosecuted.
Glaspie filed this action against Loomis Fargo for malicious
prosecution. Loomis Fargo moved for summary judgment, contending
it could not be held liable for malicious prosecution because
Glaspie was unable to prove the elements of his claim. The
district court agreed, finding Glaspie could not show Loomis Fargo
caused his prosecution.
2
A summary judgment is reviewed de novo, viewing the record in
the light most favorable to the non-movant and applying the same
standards as did the district court. E.g., Bolton v. City of
Dallas, Tex., 472 F.3d 261, 263 (5th Cir. 2006). Such judgment is
proper if the pleadings and discovery on file show there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c); e.g., Celotex
Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986).
For his Louisiana state-law claim for malicious prosecution,
Glaspie had to prove: (1) the commencement or continuance of an
original criminal or civil judicial proceeding; (2) its legal
causation by Loomis Fargo against him; (3) a bona fide termination
in his favor; (4) the absence of probable cause for such
proceeding; (5) the presence of malice in the proceeding; and (6)
damage. Craig v. Carter, 718 So. 2d 1068, 1070 (La. Ct. App. 1998).
The summary judgment was proper. Loomis Fargo notified the
NOPD of the theft and completed a theft report as required by
company policy. The report identified the employees in the truck
carrying the missing funds, but did not identify Glaspie as an
individual who should be singled out as a suspect. The NOPD
conducted an independent investigation, which resulted in Glaspie’s
arrest. Based on this summary-judgment record, Glaspie is unable
3
to show Loomis Fargo caused his arrest and prosecution as required
for his malicious-prosecution claim.
AFFIRMED
4