Harrison v. Sumter County Sheriff dept et al

Filing 87

ORDER ADOPTING 81 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS granting 67 Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Jerry Kelly, Simon Major, Robert Burnish, T Brown; granting 66 Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Jon Ozmint; rendering as moot 76 Motion to Dismiss, filed by Eugene P Harrison. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 1/24/2012. (sshe, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT CODRI

FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA·

Eugene P. Harrison,

)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.

ZUll JAN 24 A 10: tt 1
Civil Action No.: 3:1O-cv-2642-RMG

ORDER

Sgt. Det. T. Brown, Sgt. Robert Burnish,
)
Cpt. Jerry Kelly, Simon Major, Jon Ozmint )
Defendants.

)
)

----------------------------)
Plaintiff brings this pro se action seeking relief pursuant to U.S.C. § 1983 and various
state law claims. Plaintiff asserts false arrest and malicious prosecution through his arrest
pursuant to an outstanding bench warrant. The matter was referred to the United States
Magistrate Judge for all pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(I)(B) and Local
Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d), D.S.C. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation that
Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment should be granted. (Dkt. No. 81). Plaintiff has
filed objections, additional objections and final objections to the Report and Recommendation.
(Dkt. Nos. 83, 84 and 85).

Plaintiff has failed to specifically object to the Report and

Recommendation as he has simply restated the same arguments presented to the Magistrate
Judge in opposition to the motions and in his complaint. As explained herein, this Court adopts
the Report and Recommendation and grants Defendants' motions for summary judgment.
LAW/ANALYSIS

The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with
this Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261,270-71 (1976). This Court is charged with making
a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific
Page 1 of 4

objection is made. Additionally, the Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part,
the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). This Court
may also "receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate with instructions."
Id. In the absence of specific objections to the Report and Recommendation, this Court is not

required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d
198, 200 (4th Cir. 1983).
As directed by the Fourth Circuit, this Court may only consider objections to the Report
and Recommendation that direct this Court to a specific error. All of Plaintiffs "objections"
merely rehash the same arguments presented in his filings related to summary judgment. (See
Dkt. Nos. 83, 84, 85 compare with Dkt. No. 77). Nonetheless, this Court has conducted a de
novo review of the Record, the briefings before the Court, and considered Plaintiffs objections.

The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation provides a comprehensive factual
background and this Court incorporates it by reference with this Order.

(Dkt. No. 81).

Plaintiffs claims are addressed briefly below.
Plaintiff appears to claim that he was falsely arrested because he was allegedly arrested
pursuant to a previously satisfied warrant. A false arrest claim must fail where it is made
"pursuant to a facially valid warrant." Porterfield v. Lott, 156 F.3d 563, 568 (4th Cir. 1998). As
the Magistrate Judge has elucidated, there are no issues of fact as to the facial validity of the
warrant. Moreover, "it is not the duty of the arresting officer to assess guilt or innocence, but
merely to serve the warrant."
February 1, 2010).

Campbell v. Fitzsimmons, 2010 WL 985331, at *3 (D.S.C.

Because there are no issues of fact as to Plaintiffs false arrest claim,

Defendants' motions for summary judgment as to this claim should be granted.

Page 2 of 4

Further, Plaintiff has also failed to create an issue of fact as to his malicious prosecution
claim. A malicious prosecution claim requires that a plaintiff demonstrate that the magistrate
judge did not have probable cause to issue the arrest warrant and that the arresting officer should
have known that such cause was lacking when the warrant was requested. See Porterfield, 156
F.3d at 568. As Plaintiffs "malicious prosecution claim under § 1983 is properly understood as
a Fourth Amendment claim for unreasonable seizure," Plaintiff is required to demonstrate that
(1) he was arrested pursuant to a warrant not supported by probable cause; and (2) that the
criminal proceedings against him terminated in his favor. See Burrell v. Virginia, 395 F.3d 508,
514 (4th Cir. 2005). Plaintiff cannot satisfy the second element as he cannot show that the
criminal proceedings against him were terminated in his favor, and at best, Plaintiff can only
show some issue of fact concerning the first element. Accordingly, any malicious prosecution
claim by Plaintiff must be dismissed. See Burrell, 395 F.3d at 514; Nicholas v. Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc., 33 Fed. Appx. 61, 64 (4th Cir. 2002).
CONCLUSION

After a thorough review of the Record and the relevant case law, this Court finds that the
Magistrate Judge applied sound legal principles to the facts of this case. Therefore, this Court
adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. Defendants' Motions for Summary
Judgment are GRANTED. (Dkt. No. 66 and 67). Plaintiff's federal claims are DISMISSED
with prejudice and Plaintiffs state law claims, to the extent he has any, are DISMISSED
without prejudice for refiling in state court. Plaintiff's motion to dismiss is therefore rendered
MOOT. (Dkt. No. 76).

Page 3 of 4

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

Richard Mark Gergel
United States District Court Judge
January')}!. 2012
Charleston, South Carolina

Page 4 of 4