United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division
ORDER AND OPINION
Richard Mark Gergel United States District Court Judge.
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").
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.)
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.
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.
Court adopts the facts as outlined in the R. & R. (Dkt.
No. 58 at 2-4.)
motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), 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)).
Claims Against Defendant Sanders
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.
First Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 & 1983