Filed: Sep. 29, 2004
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: Defendants, Appellees.Thomas B. Merritt on brief for appellant.*, Of the Northern District of California, sitting by, designation., and various members of its police force.for making false statements to law enforcement officers;its dismissal of his supplemental state-law claims.
Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter
Citation Limited Pursuant to 1st Cir. Loc. R. 32.3
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 04-1420
JOHN C. McCARTHY,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
TOWN OF MILFORD, FREDERICK G. DOUGLAS,
and JAMES F. MULLA,
Defendants, Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
[Hon. Steven J. McAuliffe, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Boudin, Chief Judge,
Lynch, Circuit Judge,
and Schwarzer,* Senior District Judge.
Thomas B. Merritt on brief for appellant.
Donald E. Gardner, Pamela N. Morales and Devine, Millimet &
Branch, P.A. on brief for appellees.
September 29, 2004
*
Of the Northern District of California, sitting by
designation.
Per Curiam. John C. McCarthy appeals from summary
judgment against him on his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (2000) claims against
the town of Milford, N.H., and various members of its police force.
After careful review of the record and the parties' briefs, we
affirm.
Substantially for the reasons given by the district
court, we conclude that there was probable cause to arrest McCarthy
for making false statements to law enforcement officers; given the
state of police knowledge, the officers involved were under no
obligation to conduct further investigation, see Forest v.
Pawtucket Police Dep't, 377 F.3d 52, 57 (1st Cir. 2004). The
arrest being supported by probable cause, we need not consider
whether there was probable cause to arrest McCarthy for the alleged
disorderly conduct violation on which the statute of limitations
had already run.
As McCarthy's federal claims depend upon his assertion
that he was arrested without probable cause, we affirm the district
court's grant of summary judgment against him on those claims and
its dismissal of his supplemental state-law claims.
Affirmed.
-2-
