Scott Lindenbaum v. David Erenius, in His Individual Capacity

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_______________
No. 10-3102
_______________
SCOTT LINDENBAUM, Appellant
v.
DAVID ERENIUS, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY;
WARMINSTER TOWNSHIP
_______________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil Action No. 2-10-cv-00285)
District Judge: Honorable Joel H. Slomsky
_______________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
June 23, 2011
_______________
Before: BARRY, AMBRO, and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: June 23, 2011)
_______________
OPINION
_______________
AMBRO, Circuit Judge
Scott Lindenbaum was arrested for making terroristic threats, harassment, and
conspiracy to promote or facilitate the crime of terroristic threats. On appeal, he argues
that the police officer who arrested him, Defendant David Erenius, did not have probable

-- 1 of 2 --

2
cause to believe that he had committed a crime and, therefore, violated his Fourth
Amendment right under the United States Constitution to be free from unreasonable
seizures. He also contends that Officer Erenius is not entitled to qualified immunity.
The District Court, per Judge Slomsky, dealt thoroughly with Lindenbaum’s
claims. As we have nothing to add to the Court’s analysis, we simply note that, under our
applicable plenary standard of review, see, e.g., In re Ins. Brokerage Antitrust Litig., 618
F.3d 300, 314 (3d Cir. 2010), and because reviewing courts accord significant deference
to a magistrate’s finding of probable cause to arrest, see, e.g., Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S.
213, 236 (1983), the facts here amply support the District Court’s conclusions.
Accordingly, we affirm.

-- 2 of 2 --