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.

El v. Wean

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

September 7, 2017

Bakha Yawuti El, a/k/a Brandon Christopher Myers, Plaintiff,
v.
Matthew Wean, Diane Turner, and B. Wade, Defendants.

          ORDER

          DAVID C. NORTON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Plaintiff Bakha Yawuti El (“plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed this action against three Charleston County Sheriff's Deputies (“defendants”) alleging a variety of claims arising out of a traffic stop that occurred on November 29, 2015.[1] This matter is before the court on United States Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant's report and recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the court grant in part defendants' motion to dismiss, ECF No. 37. Specifically, the R&R recommends the court find that plaintiff had properly alleged false arrest and excessive force, but that any other potential claims which plaintiff may have intended be dismissed. ECF No. 42. For the reasons set forth below, the court adopts in part and rejects in part the R&R, and grants defendants' motion to dismiss in full. Additionally, the court adopts those portions of the R&R that are not inconsistent with this order.

         I. BACKGROUND

         The R&R ably recites the relevant facts, and it is unnecessary to review the details of the factual record to this point. In short, on November 29, 2015, plaintiff was arrested and charged with the possession of a stolen vehicle, driving under suspension, failure to appear as required by a uniform traffic citation, use of license plate other than for vehicle which it was issued, possession of marijuana or hash, violation of open container laws, and unlawful use of license or fraudulent application of license. ECF No. 42 at 2. On April 13, 2016, plaintiff filed a complaint against defendants alleging a variety of claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

         In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina, the matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant for pretrial matters. On March 10, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued a R&R recommending that plaintiff had properly alleged false arrest and excessive force, but that any other potential claims which plaintiff may have intended should be dismissed. ECF No. 42. On March 24, 2017, defendants filed objections to the R&R. ECF No. 44. Specifically, defendants object to the R&R's conclusion that plaintiff adequately pled allegations of false arrest and excessive force. Id. at 1. On June 20, 2017, plaintiff filed a document entitled “reply to defendants' objections” that seems to function as an objection to the R&R. ECF No. 54. In this objection, plaintiff objects to the R&R's conclusion that there was no false arrest, conspiracy, and excessive force claims.[2] Id. The matter is now ripe for the court's review.

         II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW

         A. R&R

         This court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the magistrate judge's report to which specific, written objections are made, and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The magistrate judge's recommendation does not carry presumptive weight, and it is the responsibility of this court to make a final determination. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). A party's failure to object may be treated as agreement with the conclusions of the magistrate judge. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985).

         B. Pro Se Plaintiff

         Childress appears pro se in this case. Federal district courts are charged with liberally construing complaints filed by pro se litigants to allow the development of a potentially meritorious case. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 521 (1972). The requirement of liberal construction does not mean that the court can ignore a clear failure in the pleadings to allege facts that set forth a cognizable claim, nor does it mean the court can assume the existence of a genuine issue of material fact where none exists. Weller v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1990).

         C. Motion to Dismiss

         A Rule 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted “challenges the legal sufficiency of a complaint.” Francis v. Giacomelli, 588 F.3d 186, 192 (4th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted); see also Republican Party of N.C. v. Martin, 980 F.2d 943, 952 (4th Cir. 1992) (“A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) . . . does not resolve contests surrounding the facts, the merits of a claim, or the applicability of defenses.”). To be legally sufficient, a pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). A Rule 12(b)(6) motion should not be granted unless it appears certain that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts that would support his claim and would entitle him to relief. Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Matkari, 7 F.3d 1130, 1134 (4th Cir. 1993). When considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court should accept all well-pleaded allegations as true and should view the complaint in a light most favorable to the plaintiff. Ostrzenski v. Seigel, 177 F.3d 245, 251 (4th Cir.1999); Mylan Labs., Inc., 7 F.3d at 1134. “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.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id.

         III. DISCUSSION

         A. ...


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.