Maros v. Cure, 6:21-cv-03346

Plaintiff, Dianne M. Maros, filed suit after she was accidentally shot by Deputy Ashley Cure during the attempted arrest of Maros’ adult son, Kaiser, in Maros’ home.
Cure, responding to a domestic situation and a later alleged shoplifting by Kaiser, entered Maros’ home during a confrontation that quickly escalated into a struggle.
During a physical altercation, Cure discharged her weapon, missing Kaiser and instead striking Maros.
Maros asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations, as well as state-law negligence claims against Cure and her employer (Greenville County and Greenville County Sheriff’s Office).
Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing immunity (qualified and Eleventh Amendment), and the Magistrate Judge recommended granting summary judgment in their favor.
The District Court reviewed objections by Maros and adopted the Report and Recommendation, dismissing Maros’ case.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Qualified immunity for warrantless home entry and arrest	Cure’s entry and actions violated clearly established Fourth Amendment rights; no exigent circumstances	Entry was lawful as part of an ongoing Terry stop; no clear law prohibiting entry in these circumstances	Cure entitled to qualified immunity; entry was not clearly unlawful
Use of force (shooting and injury to Maros)	Cure acted unreasonably; facts support finding of deliberate indifference or unconstitutional use of force	Cure’s actions were in a rapidly evolving, dangerous situation; use of force was not conscience-shocking	Applying intent-to-harm standard, no constitutional violation established
Standard for Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim	Deliberate indifference standard should apply due to time to deliberate before shooting	Intent-to-harm standard applies because situation was rapidly evolving and dangerous	Intent-to-harm standard correct; no violation under this standard
Liability/immunity of County Defendants	Negligent hiring, supervision, and retention; not immune under Eleventh Amendment	County Defendants immune from suit under Eleventh Amendment	County Defendants immune; summary judgment granted on these claims

Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (warrantless entry into a home is presumptively unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment)
Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740 (the home is afforded heightened Fourth Amendment protection against warrantless searches and seizures)
Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (discussing exceptions to the warrant requirement)
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (qualified immunity shields officials unless rights were clearly established)
Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (establishes two-step qualified immunity analysis)
County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (clarifies "shocks the conscience" standard and intent-to-harm for police conduct in high-pressure situations)