Sosnina v. Schadegg, 092316 FED3, 16-2175
|Opinion Judge:||PER CURIAM|
|Party Name:||ANNA SOSNINA; LARKEN ROSE, Appellants v. ROBERT D. SCHADEGG, Code Enforcer, Lower Moreland Township|
|Judge Panel:||Before: FISHER, SHWARTZ and COWEN, Circuit Judges|
|Case Date:||September 23, 2016|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit|
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) September 20, 2016
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 2-15-cv-02637) District Judge: Honorable Juan R. Sánchez
Before: FISHER, SHWARTZ and COWEN, Circuit Judges
Anna Sosnina and Larken Rose appeal the District Court's order granting Appellee's motion to dismiss. For the reasons below, we will affirm the District Court's order.
The procedural history of this case and the details of Appellants' claims are well known to the parties, set forth in the District Court's memorandum, and need not be discussed at length. In 2009, Rose's parents owned a property, and a permit was obtained for construction of a two-story addition to a residence with Rose listed as the contractor. In 2014, with the construction unfinished, Sosnina purchased the property while allowing Rose to continue to live there. In February 2015, Appellee Schadegg, the Code Enforcer for Lower Moreland Township, requested that Sosnina schedule an inspection to determine if the construction was in compliance with the construction code. When Sosnina failed to schedule an inspection, Appellee informed her that one had been scheduled for April 8, 2015, and that failure to allow the inspection would result in a citation. Rose informed Appellee that he would not allow an inspection. An inspection did not occur, and Appellee sent Sosnina a citation with a $1000 fine for failing to allow an inspection.
Appellants filed a complaint in the District Court alleging that the issuance of the citation violated their Fourth Amendment rights and constituted retaliation against Rose for exercising his Fourth Amendment right to refuse a warrantless inspection.1 Appellee filed a motion to dismiss Appellants' complaint which the District Court granted. Appellants filed notice of appeal.
We have jurisdiction under 28...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP