Calvin Norton v. Jeffrey Rosier

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:14-cv-00260-BO Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999731490]. Mailed to: Calvin Norton. [15-1383]

Appeal: 15-1383

Doc: 20

Filed: 01/07/2016

Pg: 1 of 6

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1383

CALVIN TYRONE NORTON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JEFFREY ROSIER,
WHITEVILLE,

in

his

individual

capacity;

CITY

OF

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington.
Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (7:14-cv-00260-BO)

Submitted:

November 24, 2015

Decided:

January 7, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished
per curiam opinion.

Calvin Tyrone Norton, Appellant Pro Se.
CROSSLEY MCINTOSH COLLIER, Wilmington,
Appellees.

Clay Allen Collier,
North Carolina, for

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1383

Doc: 20

Filed: 01/07/2016

Pg: 2 of 6

PER CURIAM:
Calvin Tyrone Norton filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action
against Jeffrey Rosier, Chief of Police of Whiteville, North
Carolina,

and

the

“Defendants”).

City

of

Whiteville

(collectively,

Norton alleged that Rosier violated his Fourth

Amendment rights by conducting a traffic stop of his vehicle in
South Carolina, without justification or lawful authorization as
a certified police officer, and that the City of Whiteville had
facilitated

Rosier’s

Defendants’

motion

actions.

to

The

dismiss,

district

concluding

court

that

the

granted
alleged

encounter with Rosier was so de minimis as to fail to constitute
a

constitutional

violation;

that

Norton

failed

to

allege

an

official policy, practice, or custom of Whiteville that would
permit

municipal

liability

under

§ 1983;

and

that

it

lacked

jurisdiction over Norton’s pendent state law claims.
On appeal, Norton challenges the dismissal of his § 1983
claim against Rosier and Whiteville.
As a threshold matter, we address the jurisdictional issues
raised by Defendants in their informal brief, which rely on a
prefiling

injunction

imposed

Carolina state courts.

against

Norton

in

See Home Buyers Warranty

Corp. v. Hanna, 750 F.3d 427, 432 (4th Cir. 2014).
in

the

district

North

We review questions of law related to

subject matter jurisdiction de novo.

error

the

court’s
2

conclusion

that

We find no
neither

the

Appeal: 15-1383

Doc: 20

Filed: 01/07/2016

Pg: 3 of 6

Rooker-Feldman 1 doctrine nor the Full Faith and Credit Act, 28
U.S.C. § 1738 (2012), deprived the court of authority to decide
Norton’s claims.

See Adkins v. Rumsfeld, 464 F.3d 456, 464 (4th

Cir. 2006) (discussing Rooker-Feldman); Davani v. Va. Dep’t of
Transp., 434 F.3d 712, 718 (4th Cir. 2006) (same); Davenport v.
N.C. Dep’t of Transp., 3 F.3d 89, 92 (4th Cir. 1993) (discussing
Full Faith and Credit Act).
Turning to the district court’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)
determination, we review de novo the dismissal of a complaint
for failure to state a claim, accepting factual allegations in
the complaint as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in
favor of the nonmoving party.

Kensington Volunteer Fire Dep’t

v. Montgomery Cty., 684 F.3d 462, 467 (4th Cir. 2012).
survive

a

motion

to

dismiss,

the

complaint’s

To

“[f]actual

allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the
speculative

level”

and

to

plausible on its face.”

“state

a

claim

to

relief

that

is

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.

544, 555, 570 (2007).
The temporary detention of an individual during a traffic
stop, even if only for a limited time or purpose, constitutes a
Fourth Amendment seizure.

Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806,

1

D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983);
Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923).

3

Appeal: 15-1383

Doc: 20

809-10 (1996).

Filed: 01/07/2016

Pg: 4 of 6

Because a routine traffic stop is more like an

investigative detention than a custodial arrest, we evaluate a
traffic stop under the test set forth in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S.
1 (1968).

United States v. Green, 740 F.3d 275, 279 (4th Cir.),

cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 207 (2014).

Under this inquiry, the

officer’s decision to stop the vehicle must be both “justified
at

its

inception”

duration.”

adequately

“limited

both

in

scope

and

United States v. Digiovanni, 650 F.3d 498, 506-07

(4th Cir. 2011).
Terry

and

stop

only

articulable

A police officer is entitled to initiate a
where

suspicion

criminal activity.”

it

is

that

“supported

the

person

by

a

seized

reasonable
is

and

engaged

in

United States v. Foster, 634 F.3d 243, 246

(4th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted).
In his complaint, Norton alleged that Rosier stopped him
despite the fact that he was not speeding or violating any law
at the time of the stop.

Moreover, he alleged that Rosier did

not

him

charge

Accepting

him

these

or

warn

allegations

that

as

he

true,

as

had
we

violated
must

on

a

law.

a

Rule

12(b)(6) motion, we conclude that Norton has alleged a violation
of

the

Fourth

Amendment.

See

Digiovanni,

650

F.3d

at

506

(noting that a vehicle stop must be “justified at its inception”
to satisfy the Fourth Amendment); id. (noting that stopping an
automobile is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment if there is
a reasonable suspicion that a traffic violation has occurred).
4

Appeal: 15-1383

Doc: 20

Filed: 01/07/2016

Pg: 5 of 6

While we have reviewed the alternative arguments Defendants have
proffered

in

support

of

the

dismissal

of

Amendment claim, we find them unpersuasive.

Norton’s

Fourth

Thus, we conclude

that the district court’s dismissal of Norton’s § 1983 claim
against Rosier must be vacated.
We

find

conclusion

no

that

error,
Norton

however,

failed

to

in

the

allege

an

district

court’s

official

policy,

practice, or custom sufficient to state a claim against the City
of Whiteville.
Cir.

1999).

See Carter v. Morris, 164 F.3d 215, 218 (4th
Additionally,

we

note

that

Norton’s

state

law

claims were dismissed solely due to the absence of a cognizable
federal claim; as we reinstate the federal claim against Rosier,
dismissal of the pendent state law claims on this basis cannot
stand.

In reinstating Norton’s state law claims, we express no

opinion as to the merits of these claims or the propriety of
exercising

supplemental

jurisdiction

over

them,

leaving

that

determination to the district court in the first instance.
Accordingly,

we

affirm

the

district

court’s

judgment

in

part, insofar as it exercises subject matter jurisdiction over
the action and dismisses Norton’s § 1983 claim against the City
of Whiteville; vacate the district court’s judgment in part,
insofar as it dismisses Norton’s § 1983 claim against Rosier and
his

pendent

state

law

claims;

5

and

remand

for

further

Appeal: 15-1383

Doc: 20

proceedings. 2

Filed: 01/07/2016

Pg: 6 of 6

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 IN PART,
VACATED IN PART,
AND REMANDED

2

We have reviewed Norton’s supplemental reply briefs but
find no basis for imposing sanctions against Defendants or their
counsel.

6