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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. [999634548].. [14-1789]

Download PDF
Appeal: 14-1789 Doc: 47 Filed: 08/05/2015 Pg: 1 of 5 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1789 JANE WECKER HARRISON, Plaintiff - Appellant, and CTH I CAREGIVER, Plaintiff, v. FRED OWENS;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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Filed: 08/05/2015 FRAWLEY, LLC, Pg: 2 of 5 Lexington, South Carolina, for Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 Appeal: 14-1789 Doc: 47 Filed: 08/05/2015 Pg: 3 of 5 PER CURIAM: Jane various Wecker state Harrison officials filed a violated civil her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?