Law v. Dorsey
8:19-cv-03586
| D.S.C. | Feb 4, 2020Background:
- Plaintiff Frederick A. Law, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging civil-rights violations arising from his March 2, 2018 booking at Florence County Detention Center.
- Law alleges that officer Keyunna Dorsey searched him, placed his $897 on a counter, and that Dorsey stole $200 from it.
- Defendants named: Keyunna Dorsey, Sgt. Chris Neal, Cpt. Lanita Patton, and Major Jeff Johnson.
- The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) recommending dismissal for failure to state a claim; Plaintiff filed no objections.
- The district court reviewed the R&R for clear error, adopted it as the court’s order, and dismissed the complaint without service of process.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Neal, Patton, and Johnson are liable under § 1983 | Law asserts a § 1983 claim naming these officials | No alleged personal involvement by these defendants in the deprivation | Dismissed — complaint contains no facts showing their personal participation; no § 1983 claim pleaded |
| Whether Dorsey's alleged taking of $200 states a § 1983 due-process claim | Law contends Dorsey stole money, depriving him of property without due process | A negligent or unauthorized taking does not give rise to a § 1983 claim where a meaningful state post-deprivation remedy exists | Dismissed — § 1983 not available; plaintiff must pursue state-law remedy (post-deprivation tort remedies) |
| Whether the complaint survives screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A / pleading standards | Law seeks relief under § 1983 for alleged deprivation | Court applies liberal pro se construction but requires plausible facts under Twombly/Iqbal and personal involvement for § 1983 | Dismissed at screening for failure to state a plausible § 1983 claim; no clear error in adopting the R&R |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (magistrate judge's report is a recommendation; district court makes final determination)
- Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (district court need not conduct de novo review absent objections)
- Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198 (4th Cir. 1983) (no explanation required when adopting unobjected-to R&R)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must state a plausible claim)
- E. Shore Mkts., Inc. v. J.D. Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 213 F.3d 175 (4th Cir. 2000) (court assumes truth of well-pleaded factual allegations)
- Vinnedge v. Gibbs, 550 F.2d 926 (4th Cir. 1977) (§ 1983 requires personal involvement by defendants)
- Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986) (negligent acts of officials do not implicate procedural due process for damages)
- Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984) (unauthorized intentional deprivation does not violate due process where adequate post-deprivation remedies exist)
- West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988) (§ 1983 elements require violation of federal right by person acting under color of state law)
- McIntyre v. Portee, 784 F.2d 566 (4th Cir. 1986) (South Carolina post-deprivation remedies satisfy due-process requirements)
- Weller v. Dep't of Social Servs., 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1990) (pro se pleadings are liberally construed but must allege a cognizable federal claim)