Davis v. Swick et al
Filing
34
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Peter J. Messitte on 1/4/2022. (c/m 1/4/2022 - dg3s, Deputy Clerk)
Case 8:18-cv-00421-PJM Document 34 Filed 01/04/22 Page 1 of 7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
GILBERT J. DAVIS,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No.: PJM-18-421
V.
GARRETT W.SWICK,
ALYSSA BEDELL,
NICHOLAS E. DURGIN,
PAUL MAZZEI,
"CHS,"
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In this civil rights complaint,self-represented Plaintiff Gilbert J. Davis is suing federal law
enforcement officers pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of
Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (I97I) for allegedly violating Maryland State law and the Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendments. Pending is Defendants'Motion to Dismiss. ECFNo.29. Davis opposes
the motion. ECFNo.31. No hearing is necessary. iSee Local Rule 105.6(D. Md. 2021). Forthe
reasons that follow. Defendants' motion shall be granted, and the complaint dismissed.
BACKGROUND
Davis alleges that the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") and Task Force Officers
unlawfully "procured a Confidential Informant known as 'CHS' to intercept" his "oral
communications." ECF No. 1 at 2. He states that on April 22, May 7, June 9, and September 15,
2015, CHS was provided recording equipment as well as cash for the purchase offour ounces of
Phencyclidine(PCP)from Davis. Id. at 3. The transaction between CHS and Davis was captured
on audio and video recordings but there were no warrants or court orders authorizing same. Id.
Case 8:18-cv-00421-PJM Document 34 Filed 01/04/22 Page 2 of 7
Case 8:18-cv-00421-PJM Document 34 Filed 01/04/22 Page 3 of 7
Case 8:18-cv-00421-PJM Document 34 Filed 01/04/22 Page 4 of 7
Case 8:18-cv-00421-PJM Document 34 Filed 01/04/22 Page 5 of 7
Case 8:18-cv-00421-PJM Document 34 Filed 01/04/22 Page 6 of 7
Case 8:18-cv-00421-PJM Document 34 Filed 01/04/22 Page 7 of 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?