Brenda Toomer-Frazier v. City of Columbia


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:14-cv-04360-MBS Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000043235].. [16-2096]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-2096 Doc: 27 Filed: 03/16/2017 Pg: 1 of 4 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-2096 BRENDA TOOMER-FRAZIER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. COLUMBIA, City of, an incorporated municipality, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District Judge. (3:14-cv-04360-MBS) Submitted: February 27, 2017 Decided: March 16, 2017 Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Glenn Walters, R. Bentz Kirby, Orangeburg, South Carolina, for Appellant. W. Allen Nickles, III, NICKLES LAW FIRM, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-2096 Doc: 27 Filed: 03/16/2017 Pg: 2 of 4 PER CURIAM: Brenda Toomer-Frazier appeals from the district court’s order adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and Columbia granting (the summary “City”) in judgment her 42 to Defendant U.S.C. § 1981 City (2012) of suit alleging racial discrimination and retaliation in relation to her employment. We have reviewed the record and the briefs on appeal, and we find no reversible error. substantially Toomer-Frazier for v. the reasons City of stated Accordingly, we affirm by Columbia, the No. district court. 3:14-cv-04360-MBS (D.S.C. Aug. 31, 2016). On appeal, Toomer-Frazier asserts that City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989), permits her to hold the City liable under § 1981 acquiescence, for even deliberate in the indifference absence and municipal policy or custom of discrimination or retaliation. However, employee has not been an knowledge official Canton does not reach so far. of or Canton holds that, if a municipal properly trained, the municipality’s failure to train evidences deliberate indifference to the rights of its inhabitants, and this lack of training causes the employee to unconstitutionally apply a facially valid policy, 2 Appeal: 16-2096 Doc: 27 Filed: 03/16/2017 Pg: 3 of 4 the city can be held liable under § 1983. * 489 U.S. at 388-89. Importantly, the city’s failure to train must reflect deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of its inhabitants and be “closely related” to the plaintiff’s ultimate injury. 391–92. Id. at Moreover, the Court made clear that the rule would only apply in “limited circumstances.” Id. at 387. Toomer-Frazier’s allegations fall far short of stating a claim under Canton. Toomer-Frazier has not offered any evidence (and does not even seem to allege) that City officials were inadequately failure to trained train about amounted an to official deliberate policy, or that indifference constitutional rights of the City’s inhabitants. any to the And she does not submit any evidence showing that any alleged deficiency in training caused the officials to treat her differently than white employees or was otherwise related to her discrimination or retaliation inapplicable. claims. Absent See id. at 391. these allegations, Canton is Because Toomer-Frazier has shown no official policy or custom of discrimination or retaliation by * We have held that the Supreme Court’s opinion in Jett v. Dallas Independent School District, 491 U.S. 701 (1989), limits claims against state actors for discrimination and retaliation to those brought under § 1983. Dennis v. City of Fairfax, 55 F.3d 151, 156 (4th Cir. 1995); Crowley v. Prince George’s Cty., 890 F.2d 683, 685–86 (4th Cir. 1989). Accordingly, and as the district court concluded, the standards applicable to § 1983 claims apply in this case, which was brought under § 1981. 3 Appeal: 16-2096 Doc: 27 Filed: 03/16/2017 Pg: 4 of 4 the City, the district court correctly found that § 1981 relief was not available. Accordingly, we affirm. 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 4

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?