Crosby v. Greenville County et al

Filing 21

ORDER granting 12 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 13 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and Greenville County is DISMISSED as a defendant. Plaintiff has ten days to file an amended complaint adding the Sheriff of Greenville County as a defendant. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 2/22/2012.(gpre, ) Modified on 2/22/2012 to edit text (gpre, ).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
Jasmine M. Crosby,

Greenville County, Deputy

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

M. Padula; Deputy Lanford;

)

Deputy Epps; Deputy McGonnigal;

)

and Deputy Godfrey

)

Plaintiff,
v.

C/A No. 6:11-1154-TMC

OPINION & ORDER

)
Defendants.

)

_________________________________
This matter is before the court for on Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment
and Judgment on the Pleadings. (Dkt. # 12 and 13). Plaintiff Jasmine M. Crosby has filed
a response to the motions. (Dkt. # 14).

The matter is now ripe for a ruling. For the

reasons discussed below, the motions are granted and Greenville County is dismissed as
a defendant.

Additionally, the court construes Plaintiff’s request in her response to

substitute the Sheriff of Grenville County as a motion to amend her complaint and grants
the motion.
In her Complaint, Plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that Defendants Deputies Padula,
Lanford, Epps, McGonnigal, and Godfrey claims that her constitutional rights were violated
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 and several state laws causes of action pursuant to the
South Carolina Tort Claims Act.

She also alleges Greenville County is liable for the

Deputies’ actions. In their motions, Defendants contend that Greenville County should be
dismissed because Greenville County Sheriff’s Office employees are not employees of
Greenville County. Plaintiff concedes that Greenville County is not a proper defendant in

this action. Plaintiff seeks to substitute the Sheriff of Greenville County as a defendant.
The court construes Plaintiff’s request as a motion to amend her complaint. “[L]eave [to
amend] shall be freely given when justice so requires.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). “A motion to
amend should be denied only when the amendment would be prejudicial to the opposing
party, there has been bad faith on the part of the moving party, or the amendment would
be futile.” HCMF Corp. v. Allen, 238 F.3d 273, 276 (4th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation
marks omitted). The court grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint naming the
Sheriff of Greenville County as a defendant.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Stay (Dkt. # 12 and 13) are
GRANTED and Greenville County is DISMISSED as a defendant. Furthermore, Plaintiff
has ten days to file an amended complaint adding the Sheriff of Greenville County as a
defendant.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
Greenville, South Carolina
February 22, 2012

2