Rivers v. Davis
| Decision Date | 30 May 2017 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO.: 5:15-CV-388 (LJA) |
| Parties | TIMOTHY TAVARUS RIVERS, Plaintiff, v. SHERIFF DAVID DAVIS, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Georgia |
Before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 54). For the following reasons, Defendant's Motion is GRANTED.
BACKGROUND1
Plaintiff Timothy Rivers, an African-American male, was hired by the Macon Police Department in February 2010. (Doc. 54-2, ¶ 2). Plaintiff was certified as an Explosive Ordinance Device (EOD) K-9 handler, and had been assigned to partner with EOD K-9 Arco in August 2013. (Doc. 56, ¶ 8). On January 1, 2014, the City of Macon and BibbCounty were consolidated to form a unified governing body known as Macon-Bibb County. (Doc. 54-2, ¶ 1). As a result of the consolidation, the Macon Police Department merged into the Bibb County Sheriff's Office and Plaintiff was sworn in as a deputy sheriff. Id. at ¶¶ 1-2.
In February 2014, Sheriff Davis's office received two complaints regarding traffic stops conducted by Plaintiff, both of which included citations for obscured license tags on the vehicle. (Doc. 56, ¶¶ 28, 29). Sheriff Davis states that no disciplinary action was imposed based on these complaints. Id. at ¶ 31. Instead, Plaintiff participated in an employee counseling session with his lieutenant, who suggested that Plaintiff consider issuing courtesy warnings for obscured tags rather than issuing citations. Id. According to Plaintiff, several employees have called him to ask if he would dismiss traffic citations. (Doc. 58 at 69:1-6). Plaintiff states that he never dismissed traffic citations based on these requests. Id. According to Plaintiff, Sheriff Davis had "a lot of [his] citations changed." Id. at 70:2-9.
In December 2014, Plaintiff's ex-girlfriend and her mother filed a Citizen's Complaint against Plaintiff relating to domestic disturbances at Plaintiff's house. (Doc. 54-2, ¶ 10). Dispatch records indicate that Bibb County Sheriff's Office deputies were sent to either Plaintiff's residence or Plaintiff's mother's residence, which is next door, six times between November 24, 2014 and December 2, 2014. Id. at ¶ 11. Chief Deputy Russell Nelson directed that the Citizen's Complaint be investigated by the Office of Professional Standards, Internal Affairs. Id. at ¶ 12. After the Complaint was filed, but before the Internal Affairs investigation was complete, Colonel Henderson Carswell, with the approval of Chief Deputy Nelson, moved Plaintiff from road-duty to desk-duty in the Teleserve Unit. Id. at ¶ 15. It is not unusual for a deputy sheriff to be removed from road duty when he is under investigation for conduct alleged to have occurred during a deputy's interaction with a citizen or where a deputy is believed to be not fit for road duty. Id. at ¶ 15.
On January 28, 2015, after the completion of the Internal Affairs investigation, Chief Deputy Nelson issued a written reprimand to Plaintiff, indicating that he violated the Department's written disciplinary policy, "General Order 660, Conduct and Discipline." Id. at ¶¶ 5, 16. Specifically, the reprimand notified Plaintiff that he had been found to have violated three provisions: 1) Unbecoming Conduct: "Employees shall conduct themselves atall times, both on and off duty, in such a manner as to reflect favorably on the Sheriff's Office."; 2) Intervention: "An employee confronted with a situation involving family members or friends of the employee, and where law enforcement action is required, will not intervene unless an emergency exists, without permission of a supervisor."; 3) Sheriff Canine Maintenance: "Handlers will be responsible for the health and welfare of their assigned canines, both on and off duty." (Doc. 55-1 at 1-1). The reprimand notified Plaintiff that he was being reassigned to duty in the Corrections Division, which is the division responsible for operation, security, and maintaining order in the Bibb County Law Enforcement Center. (Doc. 54-2, ¶¶ 5, 16). Plaintiff had some training in corrections, as immediately after consolidation, any deputy sheriff, including Plaintiff, who had not previously worked in Corrections for the Bibb County Sheriff's Office was required to attend an in-service class entitled, "Working with Inmates." Id. at ¶¶ 8-9.
On February 23, 2015, Plaintiff met with Sheriff Davis and Chief Nelson to discuss his reassignment. (Doc. 56, ¶¶ 56-58; Doc. 58 at 65:9-14). At the meeting, Plaintiff and Sheriff Davis discussed the written reprimand and the underlying citizen's complaint that spawned the investigation. (Doc. 56, ¶¶ 56-57). Sheriff Davis also mentioned the citations Plaintiff had written for obscured tags at this meeting, although they were not mentioned in the written reprimand. (Doc. 58 at 66:2-6).
Duty assignments generally are made to meet operational needs, address performance problems with individual deputies, or to facilitate deputies' training across divisions. Id. at ¶ 22. Plaintiff's reassignment did not result in a change in salary, rank, job grade, job title, or benefits of employment. Id. Plaintiff's eligibility for promotions and salary increases did not change as a result of his reassignment. Id. at ¶ 19. The only change to Plaintiff's compensation resulted from the fact that he no longer had a K-9 partner. Id. at ¶ 20. As a result, Plaintiff was no longer given "canine maintenance pay," which is reimbursement for the maintenance of a K-9 partner. Id. Furthermore, Plaintiff was still allowed to work overtime hours while assigned to the Corrections Division. Id. at ¶ 21. Plaintiff resigned from the Bibb County Sheriff's Office on March 2, 2015. Id. at ¶ 23.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff Timothy Tavarus Rivers, proceeding pro se, initiated this case on October 6, 2015 (Doc. 1) and filed supplemental complaints on January 26, 2017 (Doc. 12), March 4, 2017 (Doc. 14), and March 16, 2016 (Doc. 15). Defendant David Davis, in his official capacity as Bibb County Sheriff, answered Plaintiff's Complaints on April 1, 2016. (Doc. 18). Defendants Macon Bibb Georgia, Russell Nelson, Chris Patterson, Brad Wolfe, Eric Walker, Jason Kellum, Kendall Countryman, Cara Cotton, and David Davis in his individual capacity were dismissed by the Court's Order of October 28, 2016. (Doc. 38). On February 23, 2017, Defendant Davis filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 54). Plaintiff responded on March 6, 2017 (Doc. 59), and Defendant timely replied on March 20, 2017. (Doc. 64). Accordingly, Defendant's Motion (Doc. 54) is now ripe for review. See M.D. Ga. L.R. 7.3.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 allows a party to move for summary judgment when the party contends no genuine issue of material fact remains and the party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. "Summary judgment is appropriate if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Maddox v. Stephens, 727 F.3d 1109, 1118 (11th Cir. 2013). "A genuine issue of material fact does not exist unless there is sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a reasonable jury to return a verdict in its favor." Grimes v. Miami Dade Cnty, 552 F. App'x 902, 904 (11th Cir. 2014) citing Chapman v. AI Transp., 229 F.3d 1012, 1023 (11th Cir. 2000). "An issue of fact is 'material' if it is a legal element of the claim under the applicable substantive law which might affect the outcome of the case." Allen v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 121 F.3d 642, 646 (11th Cir. 1997) citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). "It is 'genuine' if the record taken as a whole could lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party." Tipton v. Bergrohr GMBH-Siegen, 965 F.2d 994, 998 (11th Cir. 1992) citing Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).
The movant bears the initial burden of showing, by reference to the record, that there is no genuine issue of material fact. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323 (1986); Barreto v. Davie Marketplace, LLC, 331 F. App'x 672, 673 (11th Cir. 2009). The movant can meet this burden by presenting evidence showing there is no genuine dispute of material fact, or by demonstrating to the district court that the nonmoving party has failed to present evidence in support of some element of its case on which it bears the ultimate burden of proof. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-24.
Once the movant has met its burden, the nonmoving party is required "to go beyond the pleadings" and identify "specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Id. at 324. To avoid summary judgment, the nonmoving party "must do more than summarily deny the allegations or show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Matsuhita, 475 U.S. at 586 (citations and internal quotations omitted). Instead, the nonmovant must point to evidence in the record that would be admissible at trial. See Jones v. UPS Ground Freight, 683 F.3d 1283, 1294 (11th Cir. 2012) quoting Macuba v. Deboer, 193 F.3d 1316, 1322 (11th Cir. 1999) (). Such evidence may include affidavits or declarations that are based on personal knowledge of the affiant or declarant. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(4).
Local Rule 56 requires that a respondent attach to the response "a separate and concise statement of material facts, numbered separately, to which the respondent contends there exists a genuine dispute to be tried." M.D. Ga. L.R. 56. "All material facts contained in the movant's statement which are not specifically controverted by specific citation to particular parts of materials shall be deemed to have been admitted, unless otherwise...
To continue reading
Request your trial