Christopher Covey v. Assessor of Ohio County
666 F. App'x 245
| 4th Cir. | 2016Background
- Christopher J. Covey and Lela G. Covey sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens alleging Fourth Amendment violations arising from assessor/data‑collector and federal officer visits to their home after a search warrant.
- On initial appeal this Court reversed the district court for failing to state claims against certain officers (Crews, Corporal Espejo, Special Agent Manchas) and remanded for further proceedings; discovery followed.
- After remand defendants moved, answers were filed within an extended deadline; the Coveys sought default judgment, which the district court denied; the court later granted summary judgment for defendants Hoffman, Crews, Espejo, and Manchas.
- The district court denied the Coveys’ late motion to amend to add two named assessors as futile because relation‑back under Rule 15(c) was not shown and the claims would be time‑barred.
- On summary judgment the court found no Fourth Amendment violation: officers saw and smelled marijuana from a non‑curtilage vantage, providing probable cause; a limited protective sweep into the basement was reasonable for officer safety; Hoffman and Crews were not present for the challenged conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion for default judgment | Defendants delayed answers after remand; default warranted | District court extended answer deadline, defendants litigated; no prejudice | Denied; district court properly denied default judgment |
| Scope of surviving claims (mandate rule) | All claims survived remand | Appellants’ first appeal limited claims to pre‑warrant events; other issues waived | Court held mandate rule limits issues to those argued on prior appeal; claims properly limited |
| Motion to amend to add assessors (relation back / statute of limitations) | Assessors were the unnamed data collectors; amendment relates back under Rule 15(c) | No evidence assessors had timely notice of suit; relation back not shown; amendment futile | Denied as futile because plaintiffs failed to prove Rule 15(c) notice requirement |
| Fourth Amendment search/curtilage (Espejo, Manchas) | Officers unlawfully entered/ searched curtilage; factual disputes exist about when they saw Mr. Covey | Officers saw and smelled marijuana from driveway/non‑curtilage; odor gave probable cause; brief protective sweep for safety was lawful | Summary judgment for Espejo and Manchas affirmed (no Fourth Amendment violation) |
| Liability of Hoffman and Crews | Should be liable for assessor visit conduct | Hoffman and Crews were not present or involved in the challenged visit | Summary judgment for Hoffman and Crews affirmed (no evidence of involvement) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Pileggi, 703 F.3d 675 (4th Cir. 2013) (mandate rule principles)
- Doe v. Chao, 511 F.3d 461 (4th Cir. 2007) (issues not raised on appeal are waived)
- Krupski v. Costa Crociere, 560 U.S. 538 (2010) (relation‑back analysis focuses on potential defendant's notice)
- Drager v. PLIVA USA, Inc., 741 F.3d 470 (4th Cir. 2014) (standards for denying leave to amend)
- United States v. Lewis, 606 F.3d 193 (4th Cir. 2010) (odor of marijuana can establish probable cause)
- United States v. Humphries, 372 F.3d 653 (4th Cir. 2004) (odor of marijuana as probable cause)
- Florida v. Jardines, 133 S. Ct. 1409 (2013) (using detection equipment at curtilage implicates Fourth Amendment principles)
- Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (1990) (permissible limited protective sweep for officer safety)