“The ultimate question is whether the totality of the circumstances justified a particular sort of seizure.”
How later courts described this case
- “The ultimate question is whether the totality of the circumstances justified a particular sort of seizure.”
- stating that “in the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.’”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
Henry James Brown, Case No. 9:24-cv-00021-RMG
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER AND OPINION
Garrett M. Becker,
Defendants.
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of the Magistrate Judge
recommending Plaintiff’s original and amended complaints (Dkt. Nos. 1, 9) be dismissed without
further leave to amend. (Dkt. No. 14). Plaintiff did not file objections to the report. For the reasons
set forth below, the Court adopts the R&R as the Order of the Court and dismisses Plaintiff’s
action. (Dkt. No. 14).
I. Background
Plaintiff Henry James Brown alleges that Defendant Police Officer Garret M. Becker drove
over Plaintiff’s foot with his patrol car breaking Plaintiff’s left ankle. (Dkt. No. 1 at 5-6). Plaintiff
attempted to bring a civil action against Defendant in state court but failed to file a proper
complaint. (Dkt. No. 1-2 at 4). Plaintiff now brings the current action renewing various state law
claims including negligence, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distresses, and
alleging that Defendant subjected Plaintiff to excessive force in violation of the Fourth
Amendment. (Dkt. No. 1 at 4; Dkt. No. 1-1 at 7.). The original complaint and amended complaint
seek over $800,000 in damages and asks that Defendant Becker be charged criminally. (Dkt. No.
1 at 6, 9; Dkt. No. 1-1 at 7.)
1
The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff that to the extent he wished to pursue his state court
claims against Defendant Becker in state court, as he originally attempted, he could utilize model
documents on the South Carolina Judiciary’s website. The Magistrate Judge further advised
Plaintiff that if he wished to pursue his action in federal court, he would need to cure any defects
in his pleading within 21 days. (Dkt. No. 5). Plaintiff filed his amended complaint, which was a
photocopy of the original complaint, and the Magistrate Judge afforded Plaintiff another 21 days
to file a proper amended pleading. (Dkt. Nos. 9,11). Plaintiff then filed a supplement to the
amended complaint with a cover letter referencing hospital bills, but Plaintiff failed to add any
new allegations to this action. (Dkt. No. 13 at 1).
II. Legal Standard
A. Review of R&R
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with
this Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The Court is charged with making
a de novo determination only of those portions of the Report to which specific objections are 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). In the absence of specific objections, the Court reviews the Report for clear error.
See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that
“in the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but
instead must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to
accept the recommendation.’”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note).
2
III. Discussion
Upon review of the record and case law in this Circuit, the Magistrate Judge determined
that Plaintiff failed to properly allege an excessive force violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Plaintiff’s amended complaint fails to allege that Defendant struck Plaintiff during the course of
an arrest, an investigatory stop, or any other “seizure” of his person. See E.W. v. Dolgos, 884 F.3d
172, 179 (4th Cir. 2018) (“The ultimate question is whether the totality of the circumstances
justified a particular sort of seizure.”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Plaintiff’s
allegations merely allege that Defendant was driving negligently or deliberately attempting to
injure Plaintiff. These allegations are state law claims, which this Court cannot consider without
supplemental jurisdiction. See S.C. Code Ann. § 15-78-70(a) (noting that the South Carolina Tort
Claims Act “constitutes the exclusive remedy for any tort committed by an employee of a
governmental entity”). Because the Plaintiff’s original complaint and amended complaint failed to
state an actionable federal claim, there is no basis for the Court to exercise jurisdiction over
Plaintiff’s state law causes of action.
IV. Conclusion
In light of the foregoing, this Court ADOPTS the R&R as the Order of the Court (Dkt. No.
14) and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s action against Defendant.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Richard M. Gergel
Richard Mark Gergel
United States District Judge
October 16, 2024
Charleston, South Carolina
3