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.

Large v. Horry County Police Department

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

March 19, 2018

Joshua Allan Large, Plaintiff,
v.
Horry County Police Department, Kenneth Kenneth Marcus, Tina Vaught, Chief Chief Saundra Rhodes, Raul Dennis, Stan Strickland, and Scott Rutherford, Defendants.

          ORDER

          R. Bryan Harwell United States District Judge

         Plaintiff, Joshua Allan Large, brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for malicious prosecution, and state law claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and malicious prosecution. Pending before the Court is Defendants' [ECF No. 29] motion for summary judgment and Defendants' [ECF No. 31] motion to unseal.

         This matter is before the court with the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 50] of Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III filed on January 29, 2018.[1] The Magistrate Judge recommended that Defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted as to the § 1983 malicious prosecution claim because Plaintiff could not establish that the charges were terminated in Plaintiff's favor. The Magistrate Judge recommended the remaining state law claims be remanded to state court under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) and the motion to unseal could be addressed by the state court.

         Plaintiff timely filed Objections [ECF No. 51] to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation.

         Standard of Review

         The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the R & R to which specific objection is made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

         The right to de novo review may be waived by the failure to file timely objections. Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). The Court need not conduct a de novo review when a party makes only “general and conclusory objections that do not direct the [C]ourt to a specific error in the [M]agistrate's proposed findings and recommendations.” Id. Moreover, in the absence of objections to the R & R, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). However, in the absence of objections, the Court must “‘satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.'” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note).

         Summary Judgment Standard

         “The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a) (2010). “A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by: (A) citing to particular parts of materials in the record . . .; or (B) showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1).

         When no genuine issue of any material fact exists, summary judgment is appropriate. See Shealy v. Winston, 929 F.2d 1009, 1011 (4th Cir. 1991). The facts and inferences to be drawn from the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Id. However, "the mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986).

         "Once the moving party has met [its] burden, the nonmoving party must come forward with some evidence beyond the mere allegations contained in the pleadings to show that there is a genuine issue for trial." Baber v. Hospital Corp. of Am., 977 F.2d 872, 874-75 (4th Cir. 1992). The nonmoving party may not rely on beliefs, conjecture, unsupported speculation, or conclusory allegations to defeat a motion for summary judgment. See Baber, 977 F.2d at 875. Rather, the nonmoving party is required to submit evidence of specific facts by way of affidavits, depositions, interrogatories, or admissions to demonstrate the existence of a genuine and material factual issue for trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986).

         Discussion

         The Magistrate Judge recommended that summary judgment be granted as to Plaintiff's § 1983 malicious prosecution claim because Plaintiff could not establish that his charges were terminated in his favor. Plaintiff's charges were dismissed following his participation in a pretrial intervention program.

         "To state such a claim [for malicious prosecution], a plaintiff must allege that the defendant (1) caused (2) a seizure of the plaintiff pursuant to legal process unsupported by probable cause, and (3) criminal proceedings terminated in plaintiff's favor." Evans v. Chalmers, 703 F.3d 636, 647 (4th Cir. 2012) (citing Lambert v. Williams, 223 F.3d 257, 261 (4th Cir.2000), Durham v. Horner, 690 F.3d 183, 188 (4th Cir.2012)) (internal citations omitted). Dismissal of charges as a result of entry into a pretrial intervention program is not termination of proceedings in plaintiff's favor. See Robinson v. Metts, 86 F.Supp.2d 557, 563 (D.S.C. 1997), aff'd, 188 F.3d 503 (4th Cir. 1999); Jordan v. Deese, 317 S.C. 260, 262, 452 S.E.2d 838, 839 (1995) ("We hold that dismissal ...


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.