Constitution and federal statutes that it describes”). To determine whether a given right may be .enforced through section 1983, we must look to the underlying constitutional provision that the plaintiff seeks to enforce. Here, the plaintiff asserts that the defendant officers initiated a criminal prosecution against Mr. Pitt without probable cause, in violation of his rights under the Fourth Amendment. This court has not yet addressed whether malicious prosecution can give rise to a violation of the Fourth Amendment. However, nearly every other Circuit has held that malicious prosecution is actionable under the Fourth Amendment to the extent that the defendant’s actions cause the plaintiff to be “seized” without probable cause. See Britton v. Maloney, 196 F.3d 24, 28-29 (1st Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); Singer v. Fulton County Sheriff, 63 F.3d 110,
holding that in a mali cious prosecution action under the fourth amendment the constitutional violation is the deprivation of liberty accompanying the prosecution holding that malicious prosecution is actionable under  1983 where the plaintiff as part of the commencement of a criminal proceeding has been unlawfully and forcibly restrained in violation of the fourth amendment and injuries due to that seizure follow as the prosecution goes ahead citation omitted holding the same for malicious prosecution holding that the fourth amendment right implicated in a malicious prosecution action is the right to be free of unreasonable seizure of the person holding that for a state actor to violate the fourth amendment by initiating a malicious prosecution against someone the criminal charges at issue must have imposed some deprivation of liberty consistent with the concept of a seizure citation omitted