Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Doe v. Cannon

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division

February 15, 2017

Jane Doe 202a, Plaintiff,
v.
Al Cannon, Sheriff of Charleston County, individually and in his official capacity, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER AND OPINION

          Richard Mark Gergel United States District Court Judge.

         I. Background

         Plaintiff, through counsel, brought this action for violations of her constitutional rights and under state law against Al Cannon, Sheriff of Charleston County; several deputy sheriffs and employees of the sheriff; and Sandra J. Serin and Senn Legal, LLC (the "Senn Defendants"[1]).

         Defendants Sheriff Al Cannon ("Sheriff), Kathryn Farmer ("Farmer"), Thomasina Dyer ("Dyer"), Andrew T. Grant ("Grant"), Lindsay Fickett ("Fickett"), Brandon Calvert ("Calvert"), Elijah Sanders ("Sanders"), Patrice Washington ("Washington"), Tracey Matthewes ("Matthewes"), Steven Durbin ("Durbin"), Bernard Keyes ("Keyes"), Michael Tice ("Tice"), Willis L. Beatty ("Beatty"), Christopher McLauchlan ("McLauchlan"), and Michael A. Walters ("Walters") (collectively, the "CCSO Defendants") have filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 12 (b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Dkt. No. 46.) This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation ("R. & R") of the Magistrate Judge recommending that the Court grant in part and deny in part the CCSO Defendants' motion to dismiss. (Dkt. No. 58.) Plaintiff filed objections to the R. & R. on January 23, 2017, and the CCSO Defendants filed a reply. (Dkt. Nos. 68, 72.) This Court partially adopts the R. & R. as the order of the Court, granting in part and denying in part the CCSO Defendants' motion to dismiss. (Dkt. No. 46.)

         The Court ADOPTS the R. & R. with regard to (1) all of Plaintiffs claims against Defendant Sanders; (2) Plaintiffs conspiracy claims against the CCSO Defendants in the Second cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and (3) Plaintiffs defamation claims against the CCSO Defendants in the Eleventh cause of action.

         The Court DOES NOT ADOPT the R. & R. with regard to (1) Plaintiffs claims for permanent injunctive relief against the CCSO Defendants in the First cause of action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 & 1983, and (2) Plaintiffs claims for post-verdict declaratory relief against the CCSO Defendants in the Eighth cause of action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 and 42 U.S.C §§1983 and 1986.

         II. Facts

         The Court adopts the facts as outlined in the R. & R. (Dkt. No. 58 at 2-4.)

         III. Legal Standard

         On a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6)[2], a "complaint must be dismissed if it does not allege 'enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Giarratano v. Johnson, 521 F.3d 298, 302 (4th Cir. 2008) (quoting BellAtl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). "In reviewing a motion to dismiss an action pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)... [a court] must determine whether it is plausible that the factual allegations in the complaint are 'enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.'" Andrew v. Clark, 561 F.3d 261, 266 (4th Cir. 2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). "In considering a motion to dismiss, [the court] accept[s] the complainant's well-pleaded allegations as true and view[s] the complaint in the light most favorable to the non-moving party." Stansbury v. McDonald's Corp., 36 F.App'x 98, 98-99 (4th Cir. 2002) (citing Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Matkari, 7 F.3d 1130, 1134 (4th Cir. 1993)).

         IV. Discussion

         a. Claims Against Defendant Sanders

         The Complaint does not name Defendant Sanders as a defendant in any cause of action or otherwise seek any relief against Defendant Sanders. For these reasons, and with Plaintiffs consent as articulated in her objections to the R. & R. (Dkt. No. 68 at 2), all claims against Defendant Sanders are dismissed without prejudice.

         b. First Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยงยง 1981 & 1983 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.