Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 38 views

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court case summary from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. It summarizes a case where Marie Gilliam sued a police officer, Cleveland Smith, and the City of Woodruff alleging sexual assault under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1981. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants. The Fourth Circuit affirmed, finding Gilliam failed to provide evidence that Smith was acting in his official capacity or that his actions represented an official policy of the City of Woodruff. Without a viable federal claim, the district court properly dismissed the remaining state claims.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    38 views3 pages
    This document is a court case summary from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. It summarizes a case where Marie Gilliam sued a police officer, Cleveland Smith, and the City of Woodruff alleging sexual assault under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1981. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants. The Fourth Circuit affirmed, finding Gilliam failed to provide evidence that Smith was acting in his official capacity or that his actions represented an official policy of the City of Woodruff. Without a viable federal claim, the district court properly dismissed the remaining state claims.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1988-09-02 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 857 F.2d 1468 Docket: 87-1741

    Original Title

    Marie Gilliam v. Cleveland Smith, Individually and in His Capacity as a Police Officer for the City of Woodruff, South Carolina City of Woodruff, South Carolina, 857 F.2d 1468, 4th Cir. (1988)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document is a court case summary from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. It summarizes a case where Marie Gilliam sued a police officer, Cleveland Smith, and the City of Woodruff alleging sexual assault under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1981. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants. The Fourth Circuit affirmed, finding Gilliam failed to provide evidence that Smith was acting in his official capacity or that his actions represented an official policy of the City of Woodruff. Without a viable federal claim, the district court properly dismissed the remaining state claims.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    38 views3 pages

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court case summary from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. It summarizes a case where Marie Gilliam sued a police officer, Cleveland Smith, and the City of Woodruff alleging sexual assault under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1981. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants. The Fourth Circuit affirmed, finding Gilliam failed to provide evidence that Smith was acting in his official capacity or that his actions represented an official policy of the City of Woodruff. Without a viable federal claim, the district court properly dismissed the remaining state claims.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    857 F.

    2d 1468
    Unpublished Disposition

    NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of


    unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing
    res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires
    service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth
    Circuit.
    Marie GILLIAM, Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    Cleveland SMITH, individually and in his capacity as a
    police officer for the City of Woodruff, South
    Carolina; City of Woodruff, South
    Carolina, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 87-1741.

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.


    Argued: May 3, 1988.
    Decided: Sept. 2, 1988.

    James Cleveland Ferguson, for appellant.


    Jack D. Griffith (Love, Thornton, Arnold & Thomason, on brief); William
    U. Gunn (Holcombe, Bomar, Wynn & Gunn, on brief), for appellees.
    Before DONALD RUSSELL and WIDENER, Circuit Judges, and
    ROBERT R. MERHIGE, Jr., Senior United States District Judge for the
    Eastern District of Virginia, sitting by designation.
    PER CURIAM:

    Marie Gilliam appeals the summary judgments entered in favor of the


    defendants on her claim brought pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. Secs. 1983 and
    1981. She also appeals from the district court's refusal to exercise pendant
    jurisdiction over her state claims. We affirm.

    Mrs. Gilliam alleges in her complaint that Cleveland Smith, a police officer in

    Mrs. Gilliam alleges in her complaint that Cleveland Smith, a police officer in
    the City of Woodruff, was using his official status to sexually assault her. Prior
    to the incidents in question, Mrs. Gilliam and Smith had been involved on a
    "romantic basis" for some twelve or thirteen years. Each blames the other for
    the breakdown in the relationship. After the relationship ended, Mrs. Gilliam
    alleges that Smith began to sexually assault her. She claims that Smith would
    come to her home or stop her while he was in the police vehicle to initiate the
    assaults.

    Smith denies that the assaults occurred. He claims that after their relationship
    ended, she would follow him or approach him during off-duty hours and
    request that he accompany her to her home. Mrs. Gilliam, during the last
    stormy years of the relationship, was charged with and pleaded guilty to
    malicious injury to personal property of Smith's, his car.

    Mrs. Gilliam contends that she complained of the alleged assaults to various
    Woodruff officials. In her complaint, she claims that she is entitled to money
    damages from Smith in his individual capacity and from the City of Woodruff
    for condoning his conduct. She alleges that Woodruff has a de facto policy
    known to police and city officials which allows the type of conduct she charges
    to Smith. Further, the complaint states that the City has done nothing to
    terminate the policy or discipline those acting in accordance therewith.

    The district court correctly granted summary judgment for the defendants upon
    its finding that the plaintiff had failed to present sufficient evidence to support
    an essential element of her case. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317
    (1986). She failed to show that in any of the incidents of which she complains
    Smith was acting in his official capacity or under color of state law. See Lugar
    v. Edmondson Oil Co., Inc., 457 U.S. 922, esp. p. 939, et seq (1981). Nor does
    the record support the allegation: "... acts of officers in the ambit of their
    personal pursuits are plainly excluded [from Sec. 1983 actions]." Screws v.
    United States, 325 U.S. 91, 111 (1944).

    Further, there is no evidence in the record that the conduct complained of


    represents an official policy or custom adopted by the City of Woodruff which
    is required to be found in order to sue a municipality under Sec. 1983. Monell v.
    New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978). Thus, summary
    judgment was proper in favor of the city.

    The remainder of Mrs. Gilliam's claims were also properly disposed of by the
    district court. Her Sec. 1981 claim was not supported by factual allegations of
    discriminatory treatment on account of race, nor was it supported by the record.

    As there was no longer a viable federal claim, the district court did not abuse its
    discretion in dismissing, without prejudice, the remaining state claims. United
    Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966).
    8

    Based on the well-reasoned and thorough opinion of the district court, its
    judgment is

    AFFIRMED.

    You might also like