John Bishop v. County of Macon, N.C.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:10-cv-00009-MOC-DLH. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999617406]. [14-2172]

Download PDF
Appeal: 14-2172 Doc: 36 Filed: 07/09/2015 Pg: 1 of 7 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-2172 JOHN WILLIAM BISHOP; DONNA J. BISHOP, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. COUNTY OF MACON, NORTH CAROLINA; MACON COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; ROBERT L. HOLLAND, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Sheriff of Macon County; C. J. LAU, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Deputy Sheriff of Macon County; GARY GARNER; W. T. POTTS; OHIO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Bryson City. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (2:10-cv-00009-MOC-DLH) Submitted: June 29, 2015 Decided: July 9, 2015 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Paul Louis Bidwell, Asheville, North Carolina; Douglas A. Ruley, Leicester, North Carolina, for Appellants. Sean F. Perrin, WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina; Ronald K. Payne, LONG, PARKER, WARREN, ANDERSON & PAYNE, PA, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellees. Appeal: 14-2172 Doc: 36 Filed: 07/09/2015 Pg: 2 of 7 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 Appeal: 14-2172 Doc: 36 Filed: 07/09/2015 Pg: 3 of 7 PER CURIAM: John William Bishop (“John”) and his mother, Donna J. Bishop (“Donna”), appeal the district magistrate judge’s revised court’s order recommendation and adopting dismissing the with prejudice Donna’s federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012); dismissing with prejudice the Bishops’ state law claims for negligence and bailment against Appellees Holland and Lau in their individual capacities; dismissing with prejudice Donna’s state law claims against Appellee Garner; and dismissing without prejudice Donna’s remaining state law claims. court erred in dismissing The Bishops assert that the Donna’s federal claims, erred in dismissing the negligence and bailment claims, and abused its discretion in exercising supplemental jurisdiction over some of their state law claims but not others. Finding no error, we affirm. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim, accepting factual allegations in the complaint as true and nonmoving drawing party. all reasonable Kensington inferences Volunteer Fire in favor Dep’t, of Inc. the v. Montgomery Cnty., 684 F.3d 462, 467 (4th Cir. 2012); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint’s “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level,” with “enough facts to state a claim 3 Appeal: 14-2172 Doc: 36 Filed: 07/09/2015 Pg: 4 of 7 to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 570 (2007). Bell Atl. Corp. v. Under this standard, bare legal conclusions “are not entitled to the assumption of truth” and are insufficient to state a claim. U.S. 662, 679 (2009). Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 Moreover, when “a complaint pleads facts that are merely consistent with a defendant’s liability, it stops short of the line between entitlement to relief.” possibility and plausibility of Id. at 678 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Bishops first challenge the dismissal of Donna’s § 1983 claims, asserting that personal property was wrongfully seized from her home because the items were not listed in the search warrants. A valid search warrant must “particularly describ[e] the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” U.S. Const. amend. IV. The purpose of this requirement is to preclude officers from a general, “exploratory rummaging in a person’s belongings.” United States v. Dargan, 738 F.3d 643, 647 (4th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Nevertheless, a warrant is not intended to impose constitutional strait jacket on investigating officers. a Courts must refrain from interpreting warrant terms in a hypertechnical manner, and should instead employ a commonsense and realistic approach.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 4 Appeal: 14-2172 Doc: 36 Filed: 07/09/2015 Pg: 5 of 7 “A search is not invalidated in its entirety merely because some seized items were not identified in the warrant.” v. Robinson, 275 F.3d 371, 381 (4th Cir. 2001). United States Thus, to prevail on an unlawful seizure claim, a plaintiff must prove that the government unreasonably seized property. Soldal v. Cook Cnty., 506 U.S. 56, 71 (1992). Although some of the personal property seized was not listed in the search warrants, we find no error in the district court’s dismissal of these claims. A commonsense but not hypertechnical review of the search warrants accounts for the items seized. The mere assertion, without more, that police seized some items not listed in the warrants does not render the seizures unconstitutional. The Bishops next contend that the district court erred in dismissing their state law claims for negligence and bailment against Holland and Lau in their individual capacities, arguing that public official immunity did not apply. North Carolina, public officials are We disagree. generally immune In from personal liability for negligence in the performance of their duties unless evidence demonstrates that they acted maliciously, corruptly, or outside the scope of their official authority. Bailey v. Kennedy, 349 F.3d 731, 742 (4th Cir. 2003); Wilcox v. City of Asheville, 730 S.E.2d 226, 238 (N.C. Ct. App. 2012). 5 Here, Appeal: 14-2172 the Doc: 36 Bishops Filed: 07/09/2015 have neither Pg: 6 of 7 alleged nor presented any evidence demonstrating that Holland or Lau acted maliciously, corruptly, or outside the scope of their official authority. Moreover, the Bishops’ cannot mere immunity. allegations of gross negligence defeat Shaw v. Stroud, 13 F.3d 791, 803 (4th Cir. 1994). The Bishops also challenge the district court’s exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over their state law claims. We review the court’s exercise of supplemental jurisdiction for abuse of discretion. Jordahl v. Democratic Party of Va., 122 F.3d 192, 203 (4th Cir. 1997). The doctrine of supplemental jurisdiction allows district courts “authority to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in limited circumstances, including . . . where the court dismisses jurisdiction.” the claims over which it has original ESAB Group, Inc. v. Zurich Ins. PLC, 685 F.3d 376, 394 (4th Cir. 2012); see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (2012). In deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, a court should consider “the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.” Carnegie–Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988). We conclude that the district court did not abuse its in discretion exercising supplemental jurisdiction and dismissing the state law claims that involved issues of settled state law. Mauro v. S. New England Telecomms., Inc., 208 F.3d 384, 388 (2d Cir. 2000). 6 Appeal: 14-2172 Doc: 36 Filed: 07/09/2015 Pg: 7 of 7 Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 7

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?