Lewallen v. McCarley
| Decision Date | 07 July 2022 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 8:21-1171-SAL-MHC |
| Parties | Christopher Edward Lewallen, Plaintiff, v. Timothy McCarley, James Ruff, Chad McBride, David Stipe, Deputy Brewer, Elisha Barrs, Monica Grier, Rachel Stoner, Stephen Patlewicz, Anmed Hospital, and The County of Anderson, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina |
Plaintiff brings this action pro se, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting violation of his constitutional rights. At the time he filed this action, Plaintiff was a detainee at the Greenville County Detention Center.[1] ECF No. 1. He claims that his constitutional rights were violated during his arrest. ECF No. 83. Plaintiff also asserts state law claims for assault and battery, based upon the circumstances of his arrest and allegations that he was involuntarily catheterized at the hospital following his arrest. Id. at 1.
Before the Court are several motions. Defendants Timothy McCarley James Ruff, Chad McBride, David Stipe, Deputy Brewer and the County of Anderson (“Detention Center Defendants”)[2] filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 132. Defendants Anmed Hospital, Elisha Barrs and Stephen Patlewicz (“Medical Defendants”) also filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 115. Defendant Monica Grier filed two Motions for Summary Judgment, ECF Nos. 112 and 121. Defendant Rachel Stoner filed a Motion to Dismiss or, in the alternative, for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 134. Plaintiff did not file a Response in Opposition to any of the Motions.
Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 124, with a supporting Affidavit, Id. at 124-1; and the Medical Defendants and Detention Center Defendants filed Responses in Opposition, ECF Nos. 131 and 135.
All pretrial proceedings in this case were referred to the undersigned pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d), D.S.C. This Report and Recommendation is entered for review by the District Judge. For the reasons below, the undersigned recommends that summary judgment be granted to Defendants on Plaintiff's claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment be denied; that this Court decline to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims; and that this action be dismissed.
FACTS[3]
On August 13, 2021, Defendant McCarley, who is an Anderson County Deputy Sheriff, was on patrol on I-85. ECF No. 132-12, McCarley Aff. ¶¶ 1, 3-4. Defendant McCarley is a certified canine handler, and his assigned dog is “Face.” Id. at ¶ 2. Defendant McCarley attempted to stop a silver Hyundai Santa Fe being driven by Plaintiff, after learning the tag on the vehicle was stolen. Id. at ¶ 5. Plaintiff initially stopped the Hyundai, but after Defendant McCarley stopped his patrol car behind the Hyundai, Plaintiff sped away. ECF No. 135-1. Plaintiff proceeded to drive through bushes and over a curb in a parking lot, passed several vehicles on double yellow lines with inches to spare, and almost hit at least one vehicle before stopping. Id.; ECF No. 132-12 at ¶ 6. Another deputy deployed stopsticks in the road, which caused the Hyundai's tires to deflate. Id. Defendant James Ruff, also an Anderson County Deputy Sheriff, positioned his patrol vehicle to intercept the Hyundai. ECF Nos. 135-1; 135-3; 132-15, Ruff Aff. ¶¶ 4-5.
After the Hyundai was stopped, Defendant McCarley exited his patrol vehicle, drew his pistol, and approached Plaintiff, who was sitting in the driver's seat, ordering Plaintiff to raise his hands. ECF Nos. 132-12, McCarley Aff. ¶ 11; ECF No. 135-1. Plaintiff complied, and Defendant McCarley opened the driver's door of the Hyundai and holstered his pistol. Id. Defendant McCarley then pulled Plaintiff out of the Hyundai and to the ground, attempting to pin Plaintiff down with his knee while reaching to the right rear of his duty belt for a pair of handcuffs. ECF No. 132-12, McCarley Aff. ¶ 12; see also ECF No. 124-1 at 1, Plaintiff Aff.
Defendant McCarley testified that he punched Plaintiff several times, as a result of Plaintiff's resistance. ECF No. 123-12, McCarley Aff. ¶ 13; see also ECF Nos. 135-1; 135-3. He twice ordered Plaintiff to give Defendant McCarley his hands. Id. Plaintiff rolled on the ground and was not giving Defendant McCarley his right hand. ECF No. 135-3. In addition to ordering Plaintiff to give his hands, Defendant McCarley ordered Plaintiff to stop resisting. ECF Nos. 1351 and 135-3. Defendant McCarley also told Plaintiff that he would release his dog, if Plaintiff kept resisting him. Id.
During this time, Defendant Ruff was handcuffing the Hyundai's female passenger, Monica Craigo. ECF Nos. 132-15, Ruff Aff. ¶¶ 5-7; 132-12, McCarley Aff. ¶¶ 18, 19. Defendant Ruff then went around the front of the Hyundai to assist Defendant McCarley. Id.; ECF No. 13212, McCarley Aff. ¶ 18. Defendant McCarley told Defendant Ruff to open the back door of his patrol car so Face could get out. Id.; see also ECF No. 132-15, Ruff Aff. ¶ 7. As Defendant Ruff opened the door of the patrol vehicle, Ms. Craigo moved beside the open driver's side door of the Hyundai, close to Defendant McCarley, and either kicked or kneed Defendant McCarley in the head. ECF Nos. 132-12, McCarley Aff. ¶ 19; 132-15, Ruff Aff. ¶ 7; 135-1; 135-3. Defendant McCarley then stated that Ms. Craigo would be facing an assault charge. ECF Nos. 135-1; 135-3; see also ECF No. 132-4 at 5.[4]
Once the patrol car's door was opened, Defendant McCarley gave “a bite command, and Face bit [Plaintiff] on the upper part of his right arm.” ECF No. 132-12, McCarley Aff. ¶ 20. Defendant McCarley told Deputy Ruff to get Ms. Craigo. Id.; see also ECF Nos. 135-1; 135-3. Plaintiff began screaming and trying to pull away from Face after the dog made contact. ECF No. 132-12, McCarley Aff. ¶ 21; see also ECF Nos. 135-1; 135-3. According to Defendant McCarley, resistance “causes the dog to become more engaged and focused on the suspect, which is what happened” to Plaintiff. Id. After moving Ms. Craigo away from the car, Defendant Ruff then returned to assist Defendant McCarley and handcuffed Plaintiff, while Face was attached to Plaintiff and Defendant McCarley controlled Plaintiff's arms. Id. Defendant McCarley then stood and commanded Face to release Plaintiff. ECF No. 123-12, McCarley Aff. ¶ 23; see also ECF Nos. 135-1; 135-3. According to the time stamps on the DCs, the entire exchange with Face occurred in under a minute. See ECF Nos. 135-1 and 135-3.
Defendant Ruff called for EMS to respond to the scene because of the dog bite. Id.; Ruff Aff. ¶ 10. The Pelzer Rescue Squad transported Plaintiff to Defendant Anmed Hospital. See generally, ECF No. 132-8. At the hospital, Plaintiff was seen by the Medical Defendants, as well as Defendant Stoner. The treating paramedic's primary impression of Plaintiff's condition was “Poisoning/Drug Ingestion,” and Plaintiff was noted to be exhibiting “[c]ombative or violent behavior,” as well as experiencing hallucinations. ECF No. 132-8 at 1. In the “Mental Status” comments, the reporting paramedic noted that, per Ms. Craigo, Plaintiff had a history of schizophrenia and had not been taking his medication. Id. Ms. Craigo also informed the paramedic Plaintiff took methamphetamine the day before, and Plaintiff advised the paramedic he had taken methamphetamine several days previously. Id. Plaintiff informed hospital personnel that he smoked crack. ECF No. 115-2 at 11.
Defendants Barrs and Patlewicz are registered nurses and were employed by Defendant AnMed Health (“Anmed” or “Hospital”) on the date Plaintiff was admitted to the emergency room. ECF Nos. 115-4; 115-5. Defendant Barrs took Plaintiff's vital signs upon his arrival at the Hospital, then transferred his care to Defendant Patlewicz and Defendant Rachel Stoner, who is a licensed and board-certified physician assistant employed by In Compass Health, Inc., and was working in the emergency room at Anmed on the date at issue. Id.; ECF No. 134-1.
Plaintiff avers that, while at the Hospital, he was held down against his will by two Anderson County deputies, Defendants Brewer and Stipe, and involuntarily cathaterized (and urine extracted) by AnMed medical staff. ECF No. 124-1 at 2. Plaintiff does not know which Hospital medical staff exactly but indicates he “believes” it was Id.
Defendant Monica Grier, M.D., is a board-certified radiologist who read and interpreted an X-ray that had been taken at AnMed on August 13, 2019. ECF No. 112-2. Dr. Grier read the X-ray offsite at Cannon Memorial in Pickens. Id. She never met Plaintiff. Id. She is not an employee of AnMed, nor does she practice in the emergency room there. Id.
Plaintiff received “1-2 sutures” and was given antibiotic ointment for the dog bite. ECF No 115-2 at 6. After Plaintiff was treated, he was released back into police custody and left the emergency room.
Summary judgment is appropriate if a party “shows there is no genuine dispute as to any issue of material fact” and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). Under the framework established in Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986), the party seeking summary judgment shoulders the initial burden of demonstrating to the Court that there is no genuine issue of material fact. Id. at 323. Once the movant has made this threshold demonstration, the non-moving party, to survive the motion for summary judgment, must demonstrate that specific, material facts exist which give rise to a genuine issue. Id. at 324.
Under this standard, the evidence of the non-moving party is to be believed and all...
To continue reading
Request your trial