322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). However, the non-moving party may not rest on its pleadings, but bears the burden to "make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of every element essential to [the] case, based on the affidavits or by depositions and admissions on file.” See Harter v. GAF Corp., 967 F.2d 846, 852 (3d Cir. 1992). 6 . The court presumes that plaintiffs’ civil rights claims arise under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, although the complaint does not specifically say so. The civil rights claims appear to be based on allegations of false arrest and malicious prosecution; thus, the court treats these claims as allegations of a violation of Gatter's rights under the Fourth Amendment. See Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 271-74, 114 S.Ct. 807, 127 L.Ed.2d 114 (1994) (<HOLDING>); Hilfirty v. Shipman, 91 F.3d 573, 579 (3d
recognizing that an alleged deprivation of the right to be free from prosecution without probable cause might be judged under the fourth amendment holding fourth amendment protects right to be free from arrest without probable cause holding failure of prosecution to disclose evidence that may be favorable to the accused is a violation of the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment holding that there is no fourteenth amendment substantive due process right to be free from malicious prosecution and suggesting that such a cause of action might lie under the fourth amendment holding that the fourth amendment right implicated in a malicious prosecution action is the right to be free of unreasonable seizure of the person