According to Plaintiff, Morris and Sherman, employees of Hospitality Partners and Carousel, accused him of committing theft – making the allegation to Brathwaite. Brathwaite then reviewed surveillance videotape to corroborate the accusations of Morris and Sherman but found no evidence of theft. Nevertheless, Brathwaite arrested Anisimov and charged him with theft. Anisimov was acquitted in the District Court of Maryland for Worcester County.

According to Anisimov, the arrest and trial caused him to suffer humiliation and also caused him to lose his job. Anisimov claimed that Defendants had (1) violated his constitutional right to be free from unreasonable arrest under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (2) conspired to violate his constitutional rights under § 1983; (3) violated his state constitutional rights of due process and freedom from unreasonable arrest; (4) conspired to violate state constitutional rights; and (5) engaged in malicious prosecution, false arrest, and defamation. Defendants Hospitality Partners, Carousel, Sherman, and Morris (collectively "Non- Government Defendants") moved to dismiss, pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6).

The Court in granting the Non-Government Defendants' Motion to Dismiss found that Anisimov failed to state a claim for violation of § 1983. To succeed on a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must prove three elements: "(1) the deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution or a federal statute; (2) by a person; (3) acting under color of state law." Jenkins v. Medford, 119 F.3d 1156, 1159-60 (4th Cir. 1997). "The person charged [under Section 1983] must either be a state actor or have a sufficiently close relationship with state actors such that a court would conclude that the non-state actor is engaged in the state's actions." DeBauche v. Trani, 191 F.3d 499, 506 (4th Cir. 1999) (citing Edmonson v. LeesvilleConcrete Co., 500 U.S. 614, 620 (1991)) (other citations omitted). To determine whether a private party is acting under the color of state law, the Fourth Circuit evaluates the "totality of the circumstances," using factors such as: (1) whether the injury caused is aggravated in a unique way by the incidents of governmental authority; (2) the extent and nature of public assistance and public benefits afforded the private entity; (3) the extent and nature of governmental regulation over the institution; and (4) how the state itself views the entity, i.e., whether the state itself regards the actor as a state actor." Goldstein v. Chestnut Ridge Volunteer Fire Co., 218 F.3d 337, 343 (4th Cir. 2000) (internal quotations and citations omitted).

The Court found that none of the Goldstein factors were met, and Anisimov failed to state a claim for violation of § 1983. The Non-Government Defendants were private actors, not acting under color of law (for the same reasons, the Court found that Anisimov failed to state a claim for violation of the Maryland Constitution). The Court also found that Anisimov's conclusory allegation that "Defendants conspired to arrest Plaintiff when there was no evidence of any wrongdoing" was not a plausible suggestion of conspiracy.

Anisimov also failed to state a claim for malicious prosecution because he failed to show that the Non-Government Defendants "instituted the criminal proceeding without probable cause or that they acted with malice for the primary purpose other than bringing the plaintiff to justice." S. Mgmt. Corp. v. Taha, 836 A.2d 627, 637 (Md. 2003).

Lastly, the Court found that Anisimov's defamation claim was untimely, as the Complaint was filed more than one year after the alleged defamatory statements were made.