Jane Harrison v. Fred Owen
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:11-cv-02215-MGL Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. .. [14-1789]
Pg: 1 of 5
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
JANE WECKER HARRISON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
CTH I CAREGIVER,
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.
June 30, 2015
August 5, 2015
Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William H. Davidson, II, Kenneth P. Woodington,
DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina; Patrick J.
Pg: 2 of 5
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 3 of 5
§§ 1983, 1985 (2012), and asserting state law claims of fraud
and misrepresentation, intentional interference with a contract,
complaint against them.
In its second order, the district court
granted the remaining defendants’ motion to dismiss Harrison’s
defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
district court erred in (1) finding that she did not have a
property interest in her license; (2) finding that she was not
denying her request for injunctive relief; and (5) declining to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her remaining state law
We review a dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) de novo.
Order Ltd. v. Marianos, 698 F.3d 168, 170 (4th Cir. 2012).
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).
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
Summary judgment is proper only if, taking the evidence and all
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
constitutional violation, the right in question was not clearly
established at the time that the defendant acted.
Town of Mocksville, ___ F.3d ___, ___, 2015 WL 3651646 at *1
(4th Cir. June 15, 2015); Ridpath v. Bd. of Governors Marshall
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,
Baltimore Cty., 713 F.3d 723, 731 (4th Cir. 2013).
submitted on appeal, and the district court’s thorough and wellreasoned orders, and find no reversible error.
affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.
v. Owens, No. 8:11–cv–02215-MGL (D.S.C. Nov. 7, 2012; Aug. 12,
2013; July 7, 2014).
We dispense with oral argument because the
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?