Saxton v. Buck et al

Filing 56

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 39 Report and Recommendation, denying 8 Defendant Brian Buck's Motion to Dismiss as to Plaintiff's Cause of Action for Civil Conspiracy, granting in part and den ying in part 10 Defendant Mark Shirley's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Causes of Action for Defamation, Tortious Interference with Contractual Relations, and Civil Conspiracy, dismissing the cause of action for tortious interference with a contractual relationship and denying as to the defamation and civil conspiracy causes of action. Signed by Honorable Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. on 03/28/2016. (bshr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Keith Saxton,

C/A No. 3:15-1244-JFA
Plaintiff,

v.
ORDER
Town of Irmo Police Dep’t, Brian Buck,
and Mark Shirley, in their individual
capacities,
Defendants.

I.

INTRODUCTION

Keith Saxton (“Plaintiff”) filed a lawsuit arising out of his termination from the Town of
Irmo Police Department. (ECF No. 1-1). Plaintiff first alleges race discrimination by the Town of
Irmo Police Department (Irmo PD) in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title
VII), 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e) et seq. Id. Plaintiff further alleges state law causes of action against
Irmo PD for defamation and invasion of privacy. Id. Plaintiff also alleges state law causes of
action for defamation, tortious interference with contractual relations, and civil conspiracy
against Defendant Mark Shirley. Id. Lastly, Plaintiff alleges a state law cause of action for civil
conspiracy against Defendant Brian Buck. Id. Defendant Buck filed a Motion to Dismiss for
failure to state a claim on March 20, 2015. (ECF No. 8). On March 23, 2015, Defendant Shirley
also filed a Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim, or in the alternative, for Summary
Judgment. (ECF No. 10). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule
73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., the case was referred to the Magistrate Judge.

The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action 1 prepared a thorough Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) and first opines that this Court should deny Defendant Brian
Buck’s Motion to Dismiss the civil conspiracy claim. (ECF No. 39). The Magistrate further
opines that this Court should treat Defendant Mark Shirley’s Motion to Dismiss, or in the
alternative, for Summary Judgment as a Motion to Dismiss under 12(b)(6). Id. With respect to
Defendant Shirley’s motion, the Magistrate opines that this Court should deny the motion as to
the civil conspiracy and defamation causes of action and grant it as to the tortious interference
with a contractual relationship cause of action. Id. Defendants were advised of their right to
object to the Report, which was entered on the docket on December 23, 2015. Defendant Buck
filed a statement of objection to the report. (ECF No. 42). However, none of the other defendants
in the case filed objections. Plaintiff did not file a response to Defendant Buck’s objections.
Thus, this matter is ripe for the Court’s review.
The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report
to which specific objections are made, and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in
part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate
Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, a district court is only required to
conduct a de novo review of the specific portions of the Magistrate Judge’s Report to which an
objection is made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Carniewski v. W. Virginia Bd.
of Prob. & Parole, 974 F.2d 1330 (4th Cir. 1992). In the absence of specific objections to

1

The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil
Rule 73.02(B)(2)(g) (D.S.C.). The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The
recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination
remains with the court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a
de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objection
is made, and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1).
2

portions of the Report of the Magistrate, this Court is not required to give an explanation for
adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and
this Court incorporates those facts and standards without a recitation.
II.

DISCUSSION

Defendant Buck has lodged one objection to the Report rendered by the Magistrate.
Specifically, Defendant Buck contends that the cause of action against him and Defendant
Shirley for civil conspiracy should be dismissed because no conspiracy to harass has been
alleged by the Plaintiff in this case.
It is well established that a Rule 12(b)(6) motion examines whether a plaintiff has stated a
claim upon which relief can be granted. The United States Supreme Court has made clear that,
under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the complaint must contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim that is plausible on its face. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); see also Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
The reviewing court need only accept as true the complaint’s factual allegations, not its legal
conclusions. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
Expounding on its decision in Twombly, the Supreme Court stated in Iqbal:
[T]he pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require “detailed factual
allegations,” but it demands more than an unadorned, the defendant-unlawfullyharmed-me accusation. A pleading that offers “labels and conclusions” or “a
formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Nor does a
complaint suffice if it tenders “naked assertion[s]” devoid of “further factual
enhancement.” To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to “state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads
factual conent that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.

3

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677-78 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-57, 570) (citations omitted); see
also Bass v. Dupont, 324 F.3d 761, 765 (4th Cir. 2003).
Defendant Buck argues that the Magistrate should have dismissed the civil conspiracy
claim because the Plaintiff is not alleging harassment in his complaint. Under South Carolina
law, “[a] civil conspiracy consists of three elements: (1) a combination of two or more persons,
(2) for the purpose of injuring the plaintiff, (3) which causes him special damage.” Lee v.
Chesterfield Gen. Hosp., Inc., 344 S.E.2d 379, 382 (Ct. App. 1989). Pursuant to Ross v. Life Ins.
Co. of Virginia, an at-will employee cannot maintain an action for civil conspiracy against his
employer where the employee alleges that the employer conspired with others to terminate his
employment. Ross v. Life Ins. Co. of Virginia, 273 S.C. 764, 765, 259 S.E.2d 814, 815 (1979);
see also Faile v. Lancaster County, S.C., 2013 WL 786447, at *4 (D.S.C. Mar. 1, 2013) (holding
that an at-will employee cannot sue his employer “or anyone acting within his authority on
behalf of his employer” for civil conspiracy arising out of his termination). In this case, the
Plaintiff does not dispute the fact that he is an at-will employee.
The South Carolina Supreme Court also applied the Ross holding to those who are public
officials, holding that a public official cannot bring a civil conspiracy claim against a member of
the public arising out of that public official’s termination. See Angus v. Burroughs & Chapin
Co., 368 S.C. 167, 170, 628 S.E.2d 261, 262 (2006). Although the Plaintiff argued that he was
not a public official, it is clear that the Plaintiff is in fact a public official. See McClain v. Arnold,
275 S.C. 282, 270 S.E.2d 124 (1980) (holding that a police officer is a public official); see also
Botchie v. O’Dowd, 315 S.C. 126, 432 S.E.2d 458 (1993) (holding that a deputy sheriff was a
public official); Gause v. Doe, 317 S.C. 39, 451 S.E.2d 408 (Ct. App. 1994) (noting that a police
officer is a public official). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claim for civil conspiracy arising out of his

4

termination against Defendant Buck and Defendant Shirley should fail pursuant to Ross and
Angus, respectively.
Plaintiff argued, and the Magistrate agreed, that the bar in Ross and Angus does not apply
to this case because his civil conspiracy claim is based upon more than just his termination.
Plaintiff’s argument relies on Judge Seymour’s decision in Reed v. Aiken, where this Court held
that “the at-will employment doctrine articulated in Ross and Angus does not govern actions by
employees based on harm other than termination such as isolation and ostracization.” Reed v.
Aiken, 2010 WL 2985805, at *3 (D.S.C. July 26, 2010). When determining that the allegations
were sufficient to allege a conspiracy based upon more than just termination, the Magistrate cited
language in the Plaintiff’s complaint. Specifically, the Magistrate held that dismissal of the civil
conspiracy cause of action would be premature at this stage of the litigation because of the
Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendant Buck and Defendant Shirley conspired with one another “to
harass, demean, threaten, and otherwise harm Plaintiff in his career and well-being.” (ECF 1-1 ¶
70). 2
This Court agrees with the Magistrate’s determination that dismissing the civil
conspiracy cause of action would be premature at this stage. 3 Defendant Buck argues that the
civil conspiracy harassment claim should be rejected because the Plaintiff is not actually alleging
harassment in his complaint, and that his complaint is only aimed at recovering for the
termination of his employment. Defendant Buck argues that the Plaintiff’s reliance on Reed is
misplaced because Reed is easily distinguishable from this case. In Reed, the plaintiff alleged

2

The Plaintiff’s complaint went on to state specific facts that supported the claim that Defendants Buck
and Shirley harassed him, and that their conduct caused the Plaintiff to become ostracized and
blacklisted from law enforcement. (ECF No. 1-1 ¶¶ 71-74).
3
It should be noted that the Court recognizes that this is a very close call. However, out of an abundance
of caution, the Court believes dismissal of the civil conspiracy cause of action at this point would be
improper.
5

that the defendants harassed and vilified him, which created a hostile work environment and
ultimately led the plaintiff to resign from his job as a tax assessor. Reed, 2010 WL 2985805, at
*1. This Court held, in pertinent part:
The Individual Defendants read Angus II to preclude all civil conspiracy actions
by at-will employees against their employers. Such a reading of Angus II is overly
broad. Contrary to the Individual Defendants' position, the Ross and the Angus
cases do not address whether an at-will employee may maintain a civil conspiracy
based upon poor treatment that allegedly leads to a resignation. In the court's
view, the at-will employment doctrine articulated in Angus and Ross does not
govern actions by employees based on harm other than termination such as
isolation and ostracization. In this case, Killian did not terminate Plaintiff. Rather,
Plaintiff alleges that Killian, in concert with Young, engaged in a conspiracy to
harm Plaintiff, isolate and ostracize him, and cause him special damages, which
forced him to resign.
Id. at *3.
In this case, the Plaintiff has done just enough to allege that he was harassed into
resigning.

Even though the Plaintiff admits that he was given the option to resign or be

terminated, he chose to resign. In any event, this Court holds that the Plaintiff has alleged facts
to support the claim that he was harassed. Specifically, the Plaintiff alleged:
a. The Individual Defendants prepared a pretextual, manufactured complaint
against the Plaintiff for events involving the Plaintiff’s personal life;
b. The Defendant Buck, outside the course and scope of his employment,
allowed a complaint to be submitted in a manner that did not comply with
Irmo PD policies and procedures so that an investigation could ensue;
c. That despite the allegations being unfounded, the Defendant Shirley continued
to create, manipulate, and scheme to have Plaintiff removed from his position
with Irmo PD;
d. That despite the allegations being unfounded, the Defendant Buck agreed
months later to terminate Plaintiff’s employment for the benefit of Defendant
Shirley and his own personal gain.
(ECF No. 1-1 ¶ 71). These facts, accepted as true, are sufficient to state a claim that is
plausible on its face that the Plaintiff was harassed. For these reasons, out of an
abundance of caution, the motion to dismiss the civil conspiracy claim is denied.

6

III.

CONCLUSION

After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, as well as the
Report, this Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate. Therefore,
Defendant Brian Buck’s Motion to Dismiss the civil conspiracy claim is denied. With respect to
Defendant Shirley, the Court grants his Motion to Dismiss the tortious interference with a
contractual relationship cause of action and denies his Motion to Dismiss with respect to the
defamation and civil conspiracy causes of action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

March 28, 2016
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

7