Jane Harrison v. Fred Owen

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:11-cv-02215-MGL Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999634548].. [14-1789]

Appeal: 14-1789

Doc: 47

Filed: 08/05/2015

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1789

JANE WECKER HARRISON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
and
CTH I CAREGIVER,
Plaintiff,
v.
FRED OWENS; ANDRE BAUER; KEN ARD; EUGENE A. “Andy” LAURENT;
TANA VANDERBILT; SAM DAVIS; GLENN MCCONNELL,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. Mary Geiger Lewis, District Judge.
(8:11-cv-02215-MGL)

Submitted:

June 30, 2015

Decided:

August 5, 2015

Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Patricia
Logan
Harrison,
Columbia,
South
Carolina,
for
Appellant.
William H. Davidson, II, Kenneth P. Woodington,
DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina; Patrick J.

Appeal: 14-1789

Doc: 47

Frawley, DAVIS
Appellees.

Filed: 08/05/2015

FRAWLEY,

LLC,

Pg: 2 of 5

Lexington,

South

Carolina,

for

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 14-1789

Doc: 47

Filed: 08/05/2015

Pg: 3 of 5

PER CURIAM:
Jane
various

Wecker

state

Harrison

officials

filed

a

violated

civil

her

complaint

rights

under

alleging
42

U.S.C.

§§ 1983, 1985 (2012), and asserting state law claims of fraud
and misrepresentation, intentional interference with a contract,
wrongful

discharge,

intentional
order,

infliction

of

district

law

court

the

defendants’

common

Fed.

R.

emotional

Civ.

complaint against them.

conspiracy,

granted

P.

defamation,

distress.
the

12(b)(6)

In

Lieutenant

motion

to

its

and
first

Governor

dismiss

the

In its second order, the district court

granted the remaining defendants’ motion to dismiss Harrison’s
intentional
third

infliction

order,

the

of

emotional

district

distress

court

claim.

granted

the

In

its

remaining

defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
Harrison

appeals

all

three

orders

alleging

that

the

district court erred in (1) finding that she did not have a
property interest in her license; (2) finding that she was not
an

“employee”

violation;

(3)

for

purposes

granting

of

establishing

defendants

a

qualified

constitutional
immunity;

(4)

denying her request for injunctive relief; and (5) declining to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her remaining state law
claims.
We review a dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) de novo.
Order Ltd. v. Marianos, 698 F.3d 168, 170 (4th Cir. 2012).
3

Hire
“To

Appeal: 14-1789

Doc: 47

Filed: 08/05/2015

Pg: 4 of 5

survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face.”

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.

662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).
reviewed

the

district

Governor

defendants

court’s

from

this

dismissal
action

of

and

We have

the

Lieutenant

no

reversible

find

error.
We also review de novo an award of summary judgment on the
basis of qualified immunity.

Durham v. Horner, 690 F.3d 183,

188 (4th Cir. 2012); see Altman v. City of High Point, 330 F.3d
194, 200 (4th Cir. 2003) (noting that an appellate court reviews
the

district

court’s

denial

of

qualified

immunity

de

novo).

Summary judgment is proper only if, taking the evidence and all
reasonable

inferences

drawn

therefrom

in

the

light

most

favorable to the nonmoving party, there is no genuine dispute of
material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.

Durham, 690 F.3d at 188.

To be entitled to qualified immunity, a defendant must show
either

(a)

that

constitutional

his

conduct

rights,

or

did

(b)

not
that

violate
even

if

the

plaintiff’s

there

was

a

constitutional violation, the right in question was not clearly
established at the time that the defendant acted.

Hunter v.

Town of Mocksville, ___ F.3d ___, ___, 2015 WL 3651646 at *1
(4th Cir. June 15, 2015); Ridpath v. Bd. of Governors Marshall
4

Appeal: 14-1789

Doc: 47

Filed: 08/05/2015

Pg: 5 of 5

Univ., 447 F.3d 292, 306 (4th Cir. 2006).

The burden of proof

and persuasion, with respect to a defense of qualified immunity,
rests

on

the

official

asserting

that

defense.

Meyers

v.

Baltimore Cty., 713 F.3d 723, 731 (4th Cir. 2013).
We

have

reviewed

the

parties’

briefs,

the

materials

submitted on appeal, and the district court’s thorough and wellreasoned orders, and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.

Harrison

v. Owens, No. 8:11–cv–02215-MGL (D.S.C. Nov. 7, 2012; Aug. 12,
2013; July 7, 2014).
facts

and

materials

legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions

are

adequately

this

and

argument

court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.
AFFIRMED

5