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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
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?