With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of law better left for the court to decide.”). We reverse the district court’s order insofar as it grants the defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law on the plaintiffs claim for arrest without probable cause under § 1983. In this case, the district court erred by considering the jury verdict' from the common law false arrest claims in its qualified immunity analysis. As explained above, whether a right is “clearly established” — ’that is, whether an objectively reasonable officer would have believed his conduct to be law ful, in light of clearly established law — is a question of law that must be resolved by the court, not the jury. We reverse the district court on this issue and remand for a determination of whether the defendants are entitled to 178, 183-84 (4th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>); Castellano v. Fragozo, 352 F.3d 939, 953-54

A: holding that a  1983 due process claim that essentially contests the fairness of the plaintiffs prosecution  is  similar to his malicious prosecution claim and claims resembling malicious prosecution do not accrue until the prosecution has terminated in the plaintiffs favor 
B: holding that a plaintiffs allegations that the defendant seized him pursuant to legal process that was not supported by probable cause and that the criminal proceedings terminated in his favor are sufficient to state a  1983 malicious prosecution claim alleging a seizure that was violative of the fourth amendment
C: holding that the fourth amendment right implicated in a malicious prosecution action is the right to be free of unreasonable seizure of the person
D: holding that section 1983 claims alleging due process violations stemming from malicious prosecution are unavailable when a state malicious prosecution action exists
B.