MCCRARY

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

SAMUEL L. MCCRARY, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) 1:24-CV-428

)

B. BENFIELD Detective Sued in )

Individual Capacity, and ROWAN )

COUNTY/OFFICERS Sheriff’s )

Office, )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

The plaintiff Samuel L. McCrary, a prisoner of the State of North Carolina, filed

suit against the defendant B. Benfield, identified as a detective in the Rowan County

Sheriff’s Office, and against “Rowan County/Officers – Sheriffs office,” alleging

wrongful arrest, prosecution, and detention, in violation of his constitutional rights. Doc.

2 at 2–5. Detective Benfield moved for summary judgment, Doc. 22, and the Magistrate

Judge has recommended granting that motion. Doc. 27. Mr. McCrary has objected to

certain aspects of the recommendation. Doc. 29. The Court finds no error in the

recommendation, adopts it in full, and grants the motion for summary judgment. If Mr.

McCrary takes no action within 21 days to prosecute his remaining claim, as set forth

below, the Court will dismiss it.

In his objections, Mr. McCrary contends he is innocent of all charges, that he was

wrongfully convicted, and that he is in process of post-conviction challenges to his

convictions. Id. at 1, 5–6. He also maintains that Detective Benfield is responsible for

directing his arrest on May 5, 2023, and ordering his suicide watch restrictions after he

was placed in detention. Id. at 1–4. He pleads for his release and seeks to have this case

held open until he is released. Id. at 7.

Mr. McCrary’s objections do not undermine the reasons for dismissal set forth by

the Magistrate Judge. The neutral magistrate’s issuance of a warrant, combined with Mr.

McCrary’s guilty plea, establishes that there was probable cause to arrest him on July 20,

2023, for the offenses of indecent liberties with a child and child abuse. Doc. 27 at 6.

Mr. McCrary’s assertions of innocence and references to ongoing post-conviction

challenges are not sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact as to probable cause

for his arrest. See Humphreys v. Rowan-Salisbury Bd. of Educ., No. 21-CV-432, 2023

WL 2692433, at *6 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 29, 2023) (holding that probable cause was

established “notwithstanding the fact that her convictions were reversed on appeal”).

As for the May 5, 2023, arrest for driving with a revoked license, the Magistrate

Judge correctly noted that a plaintiff must prove that a defendant “acted personally in the

deprivation” of constitutional rights. Wilcox v. Brown, 877 F.3d 161, 170 (4th Cir. 2017).

All the evidence shows that Detective Benfield did not order or participate in the arrest

and he was not involved in the magistrate’s bond determination. Doc. 27 at 5. Instead, a

“patrol unit” stopped and arrested Mr. McCrary for this offense. Id. at 2. In the absence

of any evidence that Detective Benfield was personally involved in the allegedly

wrongful arrest, the claim against him must be dismissed. In addition, even if it is

reasonable to infer that Officer Benfield “ordered” the arrest as Mr. McCrary suggests,

Doc. 29 at 2, there is no viable wrongful arrest claim because the undisputed facts show

there was probable cause for that arrest. Doc. 23-1 at ¶ 3; see District of Columbia v.

Wesby, 583 U.S. 48, 54 n.2 (2018) (noting that “an arrest is lawful if the officer had

probable cause to arrest for any offense, not just the offense cited at the time of arrest”).

The Magistrate Judge correctly determined there are no facts supporting an

inference that Detective Benfield was responsible for the manner of his confinement on

suicide watch. Doc. 27 at 7. The undisputed evidence shows that responsibility rested

with detention center staff. See Doc. 23-1 at ¶ 14; see, e.g., Williamson v. Stirling, 912

F.3d 154, 172 (4th Cir. 2018) (dismissing pre-trial confinement claims against officers not

involved in jail placement). Merely reporting information to the detention center staff, if

that is what Detective Benfield did, does not make Detective Benfield responsible for

decisions staff thereafter makes. Without personal involvement, Detective Benfield is not

liable pursuant to § 1983. See Wilcox, 877 F.3d at 170.

Upon appropriate review, including de novo review of those matters as to which

the plaintiff has specifically objected, the Court finds no error in the Magistrate Judge’s

analysis. The recommendation is adopted in full.

Finally, Mr. McCrary has not filed proof of service of the remaining defendant

named as “Rowan County/Officers – Sheriffs office.” Doc. 2 at 2. In January 2025, the

Court ordered that Mr. McCrary “must fill out a summons for each defendant, including

an address suitable for service, and then return the summons(es) to the Clerk.” Doc. 8 at

2. The Court warned that “[f]ailure to provide a summons with an address wherein

service may be made on any defendant will result in the dismissal of the action as to all

such unserved defendants.” Id.

Mr. McCrary sought a summons for Detective Benfield, but he did not provide a

summons directed to the other defendant, see Doc. 11, identified in the complaint as

“Rowan County/Officers — Sheriffs office,” Doc. 2 at 2. It is highly unlikely that this is

an appropriate defendant, as it is unclear who exactly Mr. McCrary proposes to sue. In

the absence of any action by Mr. McCrary showing good cause for an extension of time,

and clarification of the person or entity he proposes to sue, the Court will dismiss the

claims against the remaining defendant without prejudice under Rule 4(m), without

further notice.

It is ORDERED that:

1. The defendant Detective Benfield’s motion for summary judgment, Doc. 22, is

GRANTED and all claims against him will be dismissed with prejudice.

2. Judgment will be entered separately as time permits.

3. If within 21 days of the date of this order, Mr. McCrary takes no action to

prosecute his remaining claim, fails to show good cause for an extension of

time for service, and fails to clarifies the person or entity he proposes to sue,

the Court will dismiss the against the remaining defendant named as “Rowan

County/Officers — Sheriffs office,” Doc. 2 at 2, without prejudice under Rule

4(m), without further notice.

This the 21st day of August, 2026.

bb Bea