WPC OAh;|3ݳt{eYv){ic3P_}5Ն^rh >fzS|~aIr,e ɭjM=gJ(|L` x8AMC%!׮Ɣ-׆K~XfN2'PBV4XOIT=[2Uz{iĝM%t!. J `YFwœ LwWT.)GIr} ;j7o?@<P 6*o{mi#Y]%V|B jDyl@Ī}x?nʁ")#nc/uozƳ6BIOF?,DUww3M;OHnpA8t̥sS 'R2ئEt?2'i#;V`^t`|9!]5cI[ S<Ѐ.f4# % 0D 0(U:  0EUN nTYUF ^ w 4  & m( N? EA fC aE E E nYY N  z@U. BUBb76?zubptHP LaserJet 5/5M - Standard,,,,0X(#$  0  ($<6X9`("Courier NewTT(d:2$ !    =]Xdd=    0  vr Z6Times New Roman Regular<6X9`("Courier NewTTXXx6X@DQX@<6X9`(CourierTTXXw6X@QX@<4 9Z+.Courier New Regular.s u- y File3|xUTABLE A<6X9`(CourierXx6X@`7X@,xA`UniversXX~xP7XP,AUniversBoldxx&ps7x.2A`Arialold,,72PG;,P%\  `$Times NewRomanXXj\  P6G;XP Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5<6X9`(Courier  d<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi- - , $  =MXdd=    1    _ԀTherecorddoesnotincludeacopyofthesupporting  affidavitwhichwasincorporatedintheapplication. p $  =MXdd=    2    _ԀPlaintiffs'allegationthattheaffidavitinsupportofthe  searchwarrantwaspreparedafterthesearchhadbeencompletedis  entirelyunsubstantiated. w $  =MXdd=    3    _ԀOnthemerits,appellantsdonotdisputethedistrict  court'srulingthattheirallegations"donotcomecloseto  establishingthetypeofconductnecessarytoestablisha \ constitutionalviolation,i.e.,thatSgt._Benoit_Ԁacted 2 unreasonably."Instead,theyargueonlythatdefendant'sconduct X violatedMass.Gen.Lawsch.12,11i."Bythetermsofthe . statuteitself,asection1983claimmustbebaseduponafederal   right."_Ahern_v.O'Donnell,109F.3d809,815(1stCir.1997).   2 !  _TRY,3'X3' Letter 3' Letter3'T ? * !Xg5XXXXXg5 3'$Xg5X    NotforPublicationinWest'sFederalReporter  CitationLimitedPursuantto1stCir.Loc.R.32.3#XXg5#Xg5X  #XXg5#UnitedStatesCourtofAppeals  FortheFirstCircuit  Z XMX Z \ 'A') ` dE< ` A   No.021365 M  @ MICHAELSADLOWSKI,ETAL.,  I  @Plaintiffs,Appellants,   @tt)v. Q  @$LOUISBENOIT, M @<< Defendant,Appellee.  A') ` dE<T` A U @ APPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT : @0 0 FORTHEDISTRICTOFMASSACHUSETTS 6 @$ $ [Hon.NathanielMGorton,U.S.DistrictJudge]  A') ` dE<=` A > @'Before #s @<< CampbellandStahl, I   SeniorCircuitJudges,   andLynch,CircuitJudge. ! A') ` dE<&"` A '"w$       MichaelSadlowski,JocelynSadlowskiandSuzanneSadlowskion #2' briefprose. $ (   DouglasI.Louison,StephenC.PfaffandMerrick,Louison& % ) Costelloonbriefforappellee. d&!* *'ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,( dd ,( dd ,( dd +  (6$-(6$ u SIJ)$. i@37710i@SMarch31,2003  *p%0  RHC*F&1" i@37710 i@ R(J)$2  ( * !-XMXX XM +L'2?   8(M(XXdXXd8 P YX*  ` PerCuriam .PlaintiffsappellantsMichael,Jocelynand  SuzanneSadlowskiappealfromthedistrictcourt'sgrantofsummary x judgmentdismissingtheirfederalclaimspursuantto42U.S.C. $t 1983,againstdefendantLouisBenoitandremandingtheirstatelaw   claimstostatecourt."Wereviewasummaryjudgmentdenovo, |  viewingtherecordinthelightmostfavorabletothenonmoving ( x  partytodeterminewhetherthereexistsagenuineissueofmaterial $  fact."MunizCortesv.Intermedics,Inc.,229F.3d12(1stCir.   2000). ,|   ` Intheirbrief,appellantsbasetheirchallengetothe ( grantofsummaryjudgmentontwoallegederrorsbythedistrict  court:1)inrulingthatplaintiffs'FourthAmendmentclaimbased 0 onasearchpursuanttoaninvalidwarrantwasprecludedunderthe , doctrineofcollateralestoppel,and2)ingrantingsummary  judgmentsuasponteontheclaimcontainedin6oftheamended 4 complaint(threateningmannerofthesearch). 0 I.ClaimThatSearchPursuanttoInvalidWarrantViolated   Plaintiffs'FourthAmendmentRights 8!"   ` Thedistrictcourtheldthattheclaimthatplaintiffs' # % FourthAmendmentrightswereviolatedbydefendant'ssearchof f% ' theirresidencepursuanttoaninvalidwarrantwasprecludedbya 'b") determinationbytheLeominsterDistrictCourt,denyingfor ($+ "insufficientevidence"plaintiffs'applicationforissuanceofa j*%- criminalcomplaintagainstdefendantLouisBenoit,pursuantto ,f'/ Mass.Gen.Lawsch.2183235A.Onappeal,theSadlowskis  arguethatthecourterredinapplyingissuepreclusionbecause1) \ theissueswerenotidentical,2)thepartieswerenotthesame, X and3)plaintiffsdidnotreceivea"fullandfairhearing"in   statecourt. `   ` Weneednotresolvetheproblematicquestionofwhether  \  issuepreclusionapplieshere,becauseweaffirmonthealternative   groundthatplaintiffshavefailedtomeettheirburdenofshowing d  agenuineissueofmaterialfactastotheclaimdeemedprecluded. `  SeeFourCornersserv.Station,Inc.v.MobilOilCorp.,51F.3d   306,314(1stCir.1995)(appellatecourtisfreetoaffirmsummary h judgmentonanygroundsupportedbytherecordandfairly d presented).   ` "Onceadefendantmovesforsummaryjudgmentandplaces l inissuethequestionofwhethertheplaintiff'scaseissupported h bysufficientevidence,theplaintiffmustestablishtheexistence  ofafactualcontroversythatisbothgenuineandmaterial.To p  carrythisburden,theplaintiffmust'affirmativelypointto !l" specificfactsthatdemonstratetheexistenceofanauthentic "$ dispute.'"Melansonv.BrowningFerrisIndus.,Inc.,281F.3d272, t$& 276(1stCir.2002).  &p!(  ` Inopposingsummaryjudgment,plaintiffsreliedupon '#* depositiontestimonyandaffidavitsofJocelynandSuzanne x)$, Sadlowski.Atbest,thatevidenceestablishedagenuinefactual $+t&. controversyasto:1)whetherthewarrantpresentedtoplaintiffs  atthetimeofthesearchwassignedbyamagistrateandhad \ JeffreySadlowski'snameonit,and2)whetheritdifferedin X formatfromthewarrantauthorizingthesearchoftheirhomewhich   wasonfilewiththeLeominsterDistrictCourt.However,neither `  factualcontroversyismaterialtoplaintiffs'FourthAmendment  \  claim.    ` Theonlyspecificfactssetforthbyplaintiffsin d  supportoftheirclaimareJocelynandSuzanneSadlowski's `  recollectionsthatthewarranttheywereshownatthetimeofthe   search(the"ServedWarrant")wasunsigned,didnotcontainJeffrey h Sadlowski'snameastheoccupant,andwasdifferentinformatfrom d theonetheyviewedseveraldayslateronfilewiththeLeominster  DistrictCourt(the"FiledWarrant").Theyalsorelyuponevidence l indicatingthattheFiledWarrantcontainedfoldsinconsistentwith h howdefendantdemonstratedhewouldhavefoldedtheServedWarrant.   ` PlaintiffstestifiedintheirdepositionsthattheServed !l" Warrantincludedadescriptionoftheitemstobesearchedforand "$ theplacetobesearched(theSadlowskis'home)andtheydonot t$& contesttheadequacyofthosedescriptions.Intheiroppositionto  &p!( summaryjudgment,plaintiffsspecificallydeniedthattheywere '#* allegingthattheaffidavitsubmittedinsupportofthewarrant x)$, applicationwas"madeuporinvalid."Therecordincludesacopy $+t&. oftheapplicationforthewarranttosearchtheSadlowski  residencewhichisdatedthedayofthesearchandsignedby \ AssistantClerkMagistrateRaymondA.Salmon,Jr.+ #  1      ׀Plaintiffs X havenotarguedthattheapplicationandaffidavitinsupport   thereofdidnotestablishprobablecausetosearchtheirhome.,< #  2       `   ` Underthesecircumstances,thecontestedfactsidentified  \  byplaintiffs,ifproven,wouldnotestablishaviolationoftheir   FourthAmendmentrights.ThelackofasignatureontheServed d  Warrantwouldnotrenderthesearchunconstitutional.SeeUnited `  Statesv.Lipford,203F.3d259,270(4thCir.2000);United   Statesv.Kelley,140F.3d596,602n.6(5thCir.1998).The h FourthAmendmentdoesnotrequirethatasearchwarrant"namethe d personfromwhomthethingswillbeseized."Zurcherv.Stanford  Daily,436U.S.547,555(1978).Plaintiffs'contentionthatthe l defendantdidnotcomplywithMass.Gen.Lawsch.276,3, h prescribingthemethodsforissuanceofasearchwarrant,isalso  insufficienttosupportaFourthAmendmentclaim.SeeWhitev. p  Olig,56F.3d817,820(7thCir.1995).Weconcludethatthereis !l" notrialworthyissueastothisFourthAmendmentclaimand, "$ therefore,summaryjudgmentwasappropriate. t$& II.DismissalofClaimthatOfficer'sThreateningMannerAmounted  toConstitutionalViolation   ` Appellantschallengethegrantofsummaryjudgmentonthe 2 claimthatthe"threateningmanner"inwhichdefendantconducted . thesearchofSuzanneSadlowski'sbedroomviolatedher   constitutionalrights.Evenassumingthatdefendant'ssummary 6   judgmentmotiondidnotencompassthisclaim,"[i]tisapodictic  2  thattrialcourtshavethepowertograntsummaryjudgmentsua   sponte."Roganv.Menino,175F.3d75,79(1stCir.1999).Two :  conditionsprecedentmustbesatisfiedbeforeatrialcourtmay 6 entersummaryjudgmentsuasponte:"(1)thecasemustbe  sufficientlyadvancedintermsofpretrialdiscoveryforthe > summaryjudgmenttargettoknowwhatevidencelikelycanbe : mustered,and(2)thetargetmusthavereceivedappropriate  notice."Id.ThetendaynoticerequirementofRule56appliesto B suaspontegrantsofsummaryjudgment.Id.at80."Inthecontext > ofasuaspontesummaryjudgment,'notice'meansthatthetargeted  party'hadreasontobelievethecourtmightreachtheissueand ^ ! receivedafairopportunitytoputitsbestfootforward.'"Leyva  "Z# v.OntheBeach,Inc.,171F.3d717,720(1stCir.1999)(citation #% omitted). b% ' Ѐ ` Here,bothconditionsprecedentweresatisfied. '^") Discoveryhadbeenunderwayformorethanayearwhendefendant ( $+ movedforsummaryjudgment.Theplaintiffsweregivennoticeasof f*%- thedateofthemagistratejudge'sReportandRecommendation ,b'/ (February15,2002)thatthecourtwasconsideringenteringsummary  judgmentastothe"threateningmanner"claim.Intheiropposition \ totheReport,plaintiffscouldhavearguedthattherewere X disputedfactsconcerningthatclaim.Instead,theymerelypointed   outthatdefendanthadnotmovedforsummaryjudgmentastothat `  specificclaim.SummaryjudgmententeredonMarch1,2002,more  \  thantendaysafterplaintiffshadreceivednotice.Therefore,the   districtcourtdidnoterrinsuasponteenteringsummaryjudgment d  astotheclaimcontainedinparagraph6oftheamendedcomplaint.- #  3       `   ` Affirmed.    `  ` # XMXXXM #