Palmer v. Robbins

• Decision Date: 30 September 2021
• Docket Number: Civil Action 4:19-cv-167
• Parties: MICHAEL PALMER, Plaintiff, v. RICHARD ROBBINS, JAMES WINSTON, and OFFICER CHRISTOPHER MCBRIDE, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia

MICHAEL PALMER, Plaintiff,
v.
RICHARD ROBBINS, JAMES WINSTON, and OFFICER CHRISTOPHER MCBRIDE, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 4:19-cv-167

United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Savannah Division

September 30, 2021

ORDER

R. STAN BAKER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

This matter is before the Court on Defendants James Winston and Christopher McBride's Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 30.) Plaintiff Michael Palmer filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit asserting claims for malicious prosecution under the Fourth Amendment against James Winston, Christopher McBride, and Richard Robbins; malicious prosecution under Georgia law against Winston; and “racial discrimination in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment” against Robbins.^[1] (See doc. 8.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated his Fourth Amendment rights through their participation in a police investigation concerning the theft of gasoline from Herty Advanced Materials Development Center. (See id.) Winston and McBride now move for summary judgment on the Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution claim asserted against McBride and the state law malicious prosecution claim asserted against Winston. (Doc. 30.) Plaintiff filed a Response, (doc. 33), and Winston and McBride filed a Reply, (doc. 43). For the reasons explained below, the Court GRANTS the Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 30.)

1

BACKGROUND

I. Factual Allegations

This Section 1983 action arises out of an investigation of gasoline theft from Herty Advanced Materials Development Center (hereinafter “Herty”), a division of Georgia Southern University (hereinafter “GSU”), in Savannah, Georgia. (See doc. 33-2, p. 2; see also doc. 30-2, p. 1; doc. 33-1, pp. 1-2.) On November 22, 2016, Defendant Richard Robbins, the plant manager at Herty, contacted Defendant Christopher McBride, a lieutenant with the GSU Police Department's Criminal Investigations Division, about the possible theft of gasoline from Herty's 300-gallon gas tank. (Doc. 33-2, pp. 1-3.) Robbins informed Lieutenant McBride that a surveillance camera recorded footage of three Herty employees using one of Herty's gas pumps to fuel their personal vehicles. (Id. at p. 3.) Lieutenant McBride then visited Herty and viewed the surveillance footage.^[2] (Id. at pp. 3-4.)

The Video is dated November 16, 2016, and its time stamp runs from 18:10:00 to 18:17:00.^[3] (See Video.) Based on the Court's own viewing, the Video depicts an individual

2

driving a pickup truck in reverse towards a gas tank and then parking the truck near the gas tank. (Video 00:00-00:02.) The individual then exits the truck via the driver's door and jogs off screen towards the Herty building. (Id. at 00:02-00:12.) The individual appears to be wearing a dark colored shirt and light-colored pants, and the truck appears to be a dark-colored, four-door pickup truck with running boards. (Id.) The individual then reappears on screen and walks through and around Herty's parking lot before jogging back over to the truck and gas tank. (Id. at 01:22- 02:20.) The individual proceeds to manipulate the gas tank and begin pumping gas into the truck. (Id. at 02:20-02:53.) After a couple minutes pass, the individual appears to remove the gas pump's nozzle from the truck and return it to the gas pump. (Id. at 04:45-04:53.) The individual subsequently enters the truck through the driver's door and drives the truck to a nearby parking spot. (Id. at 05:00-05:23.) After parking the truck, the individual exits the truck, walks across the Herty parking lot, and enters the Herty building through a door. (Id. at 05:23-06:07.) Though not depicted on screen, the individual must have exited the building a different way as he next

3

reappears on the screen walking into the parking lot from around an outside corner of the Herty building. (Id. at 06:37-07:00.) The individual then walks across the parking lot and enters the truck through the driver's door. (Id.) Furthermore, while the incident occurred during the night, several exterior lights illuminate the gas tank and the Herty building's surrounding area. (See id.)

After viewing the Video, Robbins told Lieutenant McBride that he believed the individual depicted therein was Plaintiff Michael Palmer, a Herty employee. (Doc. 33-2, pp. 5-6.) Robbins informed Lieutenant McBride that he could identify Plaintiff based on Plaintiff's physical characteristics as well as the truck, which Robbins claimed belonged to Plaintiff. (Id. at p. 6.) At this point in time, Robbins had worked with Plaintiff for several years and was familiar with Plaintiff's physical appearance and truck.^[4] (Id. at pp. 6-7.) Furthermore, after viewing the Video, Lieutenant McBride believed the truck depicted therein was a dark color, such as a “dark gray or blue or possibly maybe [sic] any shade of green.” (Doc 30-3, p. 80; see also doc. 30-10, p. 2.) Moreover, as an employee, Plaintiff had access to and was familiar with Herty's facilities and how to use Herty's gas pumps. (Doc. 33-2. p. 7.) After viewing the Video, Robbins and Lieutenant McBride met with Herty's executive director, Don McLemore (who is not a party to this suit), to report the GSU Police Department's investigation into the gasoline theft. (Id. at p. 8.) In addition, Lieutenant McBride documented his visit to Herty by writing an Incident Report. (Doc. 30-7.) Notably, the Incident Report stated that “[t]he video did not show a clear view of [Plaintiff's] face[]” but “Robbins was able to recognize [Plaintiff] by [his] vehicle and [his] individual body characteristics/mannerisms.” (Id. at p. 3.)

4

On a later date, Lieutenant McBride interviewed Plaintiff in a vacant office at Herty. (Doc. 33-2, pp. 8-9.) According to Plaintiff's deposition testimony, only Robbins, Lieutenant McBride, a secretary, and himself were at Herty during his interview. (Doc. 30-5, pp. 52-53.) According to the Follow Up Case Report written by Lieutenant McBride, the actual interview with Plaintiff did not reveal any helpful information. (See doc. 30-8, p. 2.) However, after the interview concluded and Plaintiff left Herty, Lieutenant McBride noticed that Plaintiff drove a truck that “appeared to be very similar or identical to the vehicle seen in the surveillance footage.” (Doc. 30-10, p. 3; see also doc. 30-3, pp. 44-45; doc. 30-8, p. 2.)

After completing the interview, Lieutenant McBride asked Robbins if another Herty employee could view the Video and identify the employee and truck depicted therein. (Doc. 33-2, pp. 11-12.) Robbins then approached Defendant James Winston about reviewing the Video. (Id. at p. 12.) Winston viewed the Video in Robbins' office and later signed a written statement declaring that he identified Plaintiff as the employee pumping gas into the truck.^[5] (Id. at p. 13.) The entire interaction between Winston and Robbins regarding the Video occurred within Herty's facilities during Winston's normal working hours on December 2, 2016. (Doc. 33-2, p. 15.) At the time Winston viewed the Video and signed the written statement, he served as a team leader at Herty, supervised twelve to fifteen employees (including Plaintiff), and oversaw the manufacturing process. (Doc. 30-4, p. 164; doc. 30-6, pp. 7, 16; doc. 33-2, pp. 12-13.) However, the parties dispute the extent to which Winston was responsible for disciplinary matters related to the

5

employees he supervised. (See doc. 33-2, pp. 12-13.) According to Plaintiff, Winston's responsibilities focused on the manufacturing process and extended to handling employees' tardiness. (Id. at p. 12.) However, Winston testified during his deposition that he had “some disciplinary responsibilities for the people . . . under [his] supervision, ” including reporting employees who misused Herty property. (Doc. 30-6, pp. 75-76.) Furthermore, Plaintiff does not dispute that GSU policy requires supervisors to monitor the conduct of their employees and investigate and report potential employee misconduct, including theft of GSU property. (Doc. 33-2, p. 19.)

After receiving Winston's signed statement, Robbins emailed it to Lieutenant McBride. (Id. at p. 16.) GSU Police Chief Laura McCullough (who is not a party to this suit) presented the evidence gathered by the investigation to GSU administration officials, and Chief McCullough informed Lieutenant McBride that the GSU administration decided to pursue criminal charges against Plaintiff.^[6] (Id. at pp. 16-17.) Because GSU police officers' arrest powers do not extend to off-campus properties such as Herty, Lieutenant McBride contacted Detective Matthew Russell (who is not a party to this suit) with the Savannah Chatham Metro Police Department (“SPD”) to relay the details of the investigation and to request assistance securing the arrest warrant for Plaintiff. (Id. at p. 17.) Detective Russell then asked Lieutenant McBride to send him the case file, (id. at pp. 17-18), which-according to Lieutenant McBride-included “old incident reports, investigative reports, photos, and . . . the video, ” (doc. 30-3, p. 101). Detective Russell later informed Lieutenant McBride that he obtained arrest warrants for Plaintiff and would arrange for

6

the warrant service teams to serve them. (Doc. 33-2, p. 18.) On February 2, 2017, the Pooler Police Department arrested Plaintiff pursuant to the warrant obtained by Detective Russell and the SPD. (Id. at p. 19.)

II. Procedural Background

Plaintiff filed this suit in the Superior Court of Chatham County on May 23, 2019, alleging violations of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and violations of Georgia law. (See doc. 1-1.) Defendants subsequently removed the case to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446, (doc. 1, pp. 1-2), and Plaintiff then filed an Amended Complaint, (doc. 8). Specifically, Plaintiff alleges a Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution claim against Robbins (Count I); a Fourteenth Amendment racial discrimination...