Ballock v. Costlow
1:17-cv-00052
| N.D.W. Va. | Mar 9, 2018Background
- Plaintiff Scott T. Ballock filed a pro se § 1983 action arising from a September 2013 arrest related to a family-court dispute, naming former spouse Ellen Costlow and three WV state troopers as defendants.
- The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Aloi for screening; Ballock amended his complaint multiple times and the defendants moved to dismiss.
- Magistrate Judge Aloi issued an initial Report & Recommendation (R&R) finding Ballock’s claims generally timely, Costlow plausibly acted under color of state law, and recommending denial of dismissal for many tort and § 1983-related claims but recommending dismissal of the access-to-courts and a separate “color of law” claim.
- The magistrate directed Ballock to amend his intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress (IIED) claim to plead severity; Ballock filed a Third Amended Complaint and a second R&R found the IIED claim adequately pleaded.
- No party filed objections to either R&R. The district court adopted both R&Rs, dismissed Counts Three (access to courts) and Fourteen (color-of-law claim) with prejudice, and denied dismissal as to Counts One, Two, Four (abuse of process), Five, Six (conspiracy), Seven (defamation), Eight (slander), Nine (IIED), Ten and Eleven (tortious interference), Twelve, and Thirteen (breach of contract).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statute of limitations / timeliness | Ballock argued claims are timely despite events occurring in 2013. | Defendants argued statutes of limitation bar the claims. | Court (magistrate) found claims not time-barred; dismissal on that ground denied. |
| Damages / employment termination | Ballock alleged damages including employment termination. | Defendants argued lack of damages undermines claims. | Court found termination made defendants’ lack-of-damages argument moot. |
| Whether Costlow acted under color of law for § 1983 | Costlow’s conduct in the family-court context supports § 1983 exposure. | Costlow sought dismissal, contending she was not a state actor. | Magistrate and district court found Ballock pleaded facts sufficient to show Costlow acted under color of law. |
| Sufficiency of pleaded tort and § 1983 claims (abuse of process, malicious prosecution, conspiracy, defamation, slander, tortious interference, breach of contract) | Ballock alleged facts supporting each listed claim. | Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state claims. | Court denied dismissal as to these claims (Counts One, Two, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Ten, Eleven, Twelve, Thirteen). |
| Access-to-courts claim (Count Three) | Ballock asserted denial of access to courts. | Defendants sought dismissal for failure to plead elements. | Magistrate recommended and court dismissed Count Three with prejudice. |
| “Color of law” claim (Count Fourteen) | Ballock asserted an additional color-of-law claim. | Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. | Magistrate recommended and court dismissed Count Fourteen with prejudice. |
| IIED severity element (Count Nine) | Ballock initially alleged distress; later amended to add severity facts. | Defendants argued initial pleading failed to show severe distress. | Magistrate directed amendment; after amendment, IIED survived dismissal and court denied dismissal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dellacirprete v. Gutierrez, 479 F. Supp. 2d 600 (N.D. W. Va. 2007) (district court may adopt magistrate recommendations to which no party objects)
- Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198 (4th Cir. 1983) (standard for district adoption of magistrate recommendations)
- Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (review standard for unobjected-to magistrate recommendations)