Hall v. Johnson et al

Filing 75

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 43 , 44 , is GRANTED, and this action is DISMISSED. Signed by Honorable G Ross Anderson, Jr on 11/8/2011. (mcot, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
SPARTANBURG DIVISION

DOUGLAS HALL,
Plaintiff,
v.
JAMES JOHNSON & BRIAN BAILEY,
Defendants.
_________________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A. No.: 07:11-cv-00143-GRA
ORDER
(Written Opinion)

This matter comes before the Court for review of the magistrate’s Report
and Recommendation filed on September 29, 2011 and made in accordance with
28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d), D.S.C. Plaintiff Douglas Hall
brought this action on January 19, 2011, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In her
September 29, 2011 Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Shiva V.
Hodges recommended dismissing this case without prejudice. See Report and
Recommendation, ECF No. 65. Plaintiff filed a timely Objection to the magistrate
judge’s Report and Recommendation on October 17, 2011. See ECF No. 67. For
the reasons stated herein, the Court adopts the magistrate’s Report and
Recommendation in its entirety.
Background
Plaintiff is a state prisoner currently incarcerated at Allendale Correctional
Institution. According to Plaintiff’s Complaint, he was arrested for possession with

intent to distribute crack cocaine on May 18, 2010. He alleges that Officer James
Johnson “wrote up a false report on the affidavit stating that [Plaintiff] had the
drugs in [his] possession.” Plaintiff also claims that “Capt. Brian Bailey was the
first one on the scene and also lied about seeing [Plaintiff] drop the drugs.” South
Carolina Magistrate Judge Buckey Sprouse and Captain James McNeil were
previously named as defendants, but have since been dismissed. According to
Defendant Bailey’s brief, and undisputed by Plaintiff, Plaintiff was convicted by a
jury on April 6, 2011 on charges stemming from the May 18, 2010 arrest.
Standard of Review
Plaintiff brings this claim pro se. This Court is required to construe pro se
pleadings liberally. Such pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those
drafted by attorneys.

Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978).

This Court is charged with liberally construing a pleading filed by a pro se litigant to
allow for the development of a potentially meritorious claim. Boag v. MacDougall,
454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982).

A court may not construct the plaintiff’s legal

arguments for him, Small v. Endicott, 998 F.2d 411 (7th Cir. 1993), nor is a
district court required to recognize “obscure or extravagant claims defying the most
concerted efforts to unravel them,” Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274,
1277 (4th Cir. 1985), cert denied, 475 U.S. 1088 (1986).
The magistrate makes only a recommendation to the Court.

The

recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final
determination remains with the Court. Matthews 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 objection is made.
Accordingly, this 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)(1).
In order for objections to be considered by a United States District Judge,
the objections must be timely filed and must specifically identify the portions of the
Report and Recommendation to which the party objects and the basis for the
objections. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94
n.4 (4th Cir. 1984); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845–47 nn.1–3 (4th Cir.
1985). “Courts have . . . held de novo review to be unnecessary in . . . situations
when a party makes general and conclusory objections that do not direct the court
to a specific error in the magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendation.”
Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). Furthermore, 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, 1999 (4th Cir. 1983).
Discussion
In Plaintiff’s Complaint and Objection to the magistrate’s Report and
Recommendation, Plaintiff raised a claim of false imprisonment, alleging that there
was a violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights under § 1983 for an illegal arrest
that resulted in his conviction. See ECF Nos. 1 & 67. Moreover, Plaintiff is
seeking monetary damages against state officials for these alleged constitutional

violations. See ECF No. 1. After a review of the record, this Court finds that the
magistrate’s Report and Recommendation accurately summarizes this case and the
applicable law. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is accepted and
adopted in its entirety.
Moreover, even if Plaintiff had successfully argued that his claims against the
Defendants satisfied the requirements in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994),
Plaintiff cannot maintain a § 1983 action against Defendants Johnson and Bailey
because of qualified immunity. Counties are considered to be municipalities under
§ 1983; thus, Union County is considered to be a municipality in this case. See
Swaringen v. Ariail, No. 4:10-cv-2825, 2011 WL 2036372 at *4 (D.S.C. April 28,
2011).1 Defendant Brian Bailey, Union County Public Safety, and Defendant James
Johnson, Union County Sheriff’s Office, are officials of agencies that are an
integral part of Union County under § 1983. “[A] municipality may be liable under
§ 1983 for the violation of a plaintiff’s constitutional rights, but ‘only where the
constitutionally offensive actions of employees are taken in furtherance of some
municipal policy or custom.’” Swaringen, 2011 WL 2036372 at *4 (quoting Monell
v. New York City Dept. of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978)).
Here, Plaintiff makes factual allegations that Defendants Johnson and Bailey
both lied to officials that Plaintiff had drugs in his possession. See ECF No. 1.
Notwithstanding the fact that Plaintiff’s claims appear to be completely
unsubstantiated, Plaintiff’s Complaint makes no factual allegations that Defendants
1

Report and Recommendation adopted in Swaringen v. Ariail, No. 4:10-cv-02825, 2011 WL
2020746 (D.S.C. May 23, 2011).

acted in furtherance of a policy, custom, or practice that resulted in the alleged
violation of Plaintiff’s civil rights.

Therefore, Plaintiff cannot maintain a claim

against Defendants under 28 U.S.C. § 1983.2

Furthermore, Plaintiff’s claim

against Defendants Johnson and Bailey is frivolous and fails to state a claim for
which relief may be granted by this Court. See Walker v. Prince George’s Cnty.,
575 F.3d 426, 431 (4th Cir. 2009).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment is GRANTED, and this action is DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

November 8, 2011
Anderson, South Carolina
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure,
Plaintiff has the right to appeal this Order within thirty (30) days from the date of
its entry. Failure to meet this deadline, as modified by Rule 4 of the Federal Rules
of Appellate Procedure, will waive the right to appeal.

2

“[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true to ‘state a claim for relief
that is plausible on its fact.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). Under this plausibility standard, Plaintiff must
demonstrate more than “a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. Plaintiff’s
complaint fails to state a plausible claim against Defendants Johnson and Bailey under Monell
because Plaintiff fails to allege any policy, custom, or practice that resulted in a violation of
Plaintiff’s rights or that the Defendants were deliberately indifferent to the alleged actions.