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)

Download PDF
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?