Chapman v. Watson

TREVON DESHON CHAPMAN, SR., Plaintiff, v. ERIC WATSON; RYAN SULLIVAN; and DEANNA MOSLEY OSBORNE, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-33

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

August 4, 2021

MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

BENJAMIN W. CHEESBRO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This matter is before the Court on Defendants Ryan Sullivan and Eric Watson's Motion for Summary Judgment, doc. 52, and Defendant Deana Mosley Osborne's Motion for Summary Judgment, doc. 55. Plaintiff filed a Response, opposing both Motions for Summary Judgment. Doc. 65. Defendants filed Replies. Docs. 68, 69. For the following reasons, I RECOMMEND the Court GRANT Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment DIRECT the Clerk of Court to CLOSE this case and enter the appropriate judgment, and DENY Plaintiff in forma pauperis status on appeal.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff brought this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action relating to his arrest and incarceration at Camden County Safety Complex. Doc. 1. After conducting frivolity review, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Procter and Mastroianni. Doc. 18. However, the Court permitted Plaintiff to proceed with his retaliation claim against Defendant Watson, his Fourth Amendment search and seizure claim against Defendant Sullivan, and his deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim against Defendant Osborne. Id.

Plaintiff alleges Defendant Sullivan illegally arrested him on May 7 2017. Doc. 1 at 5. Additionally, Plaintiff claims Defendant Sullivan illegally searched and seized Plaintiff's vehicle, violating his Fourth Amendment rights. Id. at 3. Upon Plaintiff's arrival at Camden County Public Safety Complex, he contends Defendant Osborne was deliberately indifferent to his broken clavicle and scapula when she confiscated his arm sling and by refusing to provide Plaintiff with his prescribed medication. Id. at 5 7. When Plaintiff tried to file a grievance relating to the confiscation of his sling, Defendant Watson placed him on “lockdown, ” further violating his constitutional rights. Id. at 7.

UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS

Local Rule 56.1 of the Southern District of Georgia provides a party moving for summary judgment must include “a separate, short, and concise statement of the material facts as to which it is contended there exists no genuine dispute to be tried as well as any conclusions of law thereof.” Local R. 56.1. Defendants submitted Statements of Material Fact in support of their respective Motions for Summary Judgment, in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 56.1. Docs. 52-1, 55-1.

Defendants Sullivan and Watson's Statement of Material Facts (“SMF”) relies on: affidavits from Defendants Camden County Sherriff's Office Case Report from Plaintiff's arrest; video footage from Defendant Sullivan's vehicle;^[1] Camden County Sherriff's Office Policies on Vehicle Searches and on Transport of Sick or Injured Prisoners; Camden County Jail Policy on: Pre-Admission Procedures, Booking Checklist, Orientation, Crimes within the Facility, Administrative Separation, Disciplinary Separation, and Grievance System; an Inmate Housing History Report for 2017; Disciplinary Records related to Plaintiff; Inmate Grievance Detail Reports; Inmate Handbook; Medical Records; and certified records form Camden County Probate Court. Docs. 52-3 to 52-22. Defendant Osborne's SMF relies on medical records and her affidavit. Docs. 55-3, 55-4.

Plaintiff filed a single Response to both Motions for Summary Judgment. Doc. 65. Plaintiff's Response includes an affidavit, sworn under penalty of perjury, in place of his statement of material facts. Doc. 65. Plaintiff's affidavit contains no citations to the record. Because Plaintiff did not satisfy Local Rule 56.1 by filing a response to Defendants' Statements of Material Facts, all facts proffered by Defendants that have evidentiary support in the record are deemed admitted. See Local R. 56.1; Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e); see also Williams v. Slack, 438 Fed.Appx. 848, 849-50 (11th Cir. 2011) (finding no error in deeming defendants' material facts admitted where pro se prisoner failed to respond with specific citations to evidence and otherwise failed to state valid objections); Scoggins v. Arrow Trucking Co., 92 F.Supp.2d 1372, 1373 n.1 (S.D. Ga. 2000) (finding, under Local Rule 56.1 and Eleventh Circuit precedent, “all unopposed fact statements supported by the evidentiary materials of record are deemed admitted”).

However, the Court considers at summary judgment the factual statements made with specificity in Plaintiff's affidavit based on Plaintiff's first-hand knowledge because Plaintiff attested them to be true under penalty of perjury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1746; Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e); United States v. Four Parcels of Real Prop., 941 F.2d 1428, 1444 (11th Cir. 1991). Nonetheless, “[u]nsupported, conclusory allegations that a plaintiff suffered a constitutionally cognizant injury are insufficient to withstand a motion for summary judgment.” Howard v. Memnon, 572 Fed.Appx. 692, 695 (11th Cir. 2014) (citing Bennett v. Parker, 898 F.2d 1530, 1532-34 (11th Cir. 1990)). The Court also considers Plaintiff's arguments in his Brief in Support of his Response and Objections to Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment. Doc. 65-1.

Additionally, when considering the record at summary judgment, “the evidence of the nonmovant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor.” Shaw v. City of Selma, 884 F.3d 1093, 1098 (11th Cir. 2018) (internal punctuation omitted) (quoting Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S. 650, 651 (2014)). But in cases with a video in evidence, the Court “‘view[s] the facts in the light depicted by the videotape.'” Shaw, 884 F.3d at 1098 (quoting Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380-81 (2007)). As noted below, much of Plaintiff's affidavit is plainly contradicted by the video and, thus, is excluded from the Court's consideration.

In light of these circumstances, and after reviewing the parties' submissions, the Court identifies the following undisputed, material facts for the purposes of evaluating Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment:

I. Plaintiff's Arrest and Search and Seizure of his Vehicle

On May 7, 2017, Defendant Sullivan, a deputy sheriff with the Camden County Sherriff's Office, responded to a call from the Kingsland Police Department to be on the lookout for a green 1994 Ford Mustang with chrome rims and California registration because of a suspected child kidnapping. Doc. 52-1 at 2; Doc. 52-3 at 1-2; Doc. 52-5. Defendant Sullivan located the vehicle at the Georgia Hotel/Motel parking lot on Highway 17 in Kingsland, Georgia. Doc. 52-1 at 2; Doc. 52-3 at 2; Doc. 52-5 at 1, 6; Doc. 52-6 at 00:20-00:31; Doc. 65 at 1. When Defendant Sullivan arrived, the car was parked and Plaintiff was standing next to the vehicle while a woman, later identified as the child's mother, was removing the child from the vehicle. Doc. 52-1 at 2; Doc. 52-3 at 2-3; Doc. 52-6 at 00:20-00:40; Doc. 65 at 1. Based on Defendant Sullivan's experience with domestic and child custody disputes, he was concerned about any potential conflict escalating and becoming violent. Doc. 52-1 at 2; Doc. 52-3 at 3. Defendant Sullivan acted consistently with Camden County Sheriff's Office procedure by securing Plaintiff with handcuffs behind his back while investigating the potential kidnapping. Doc. 52-1 at 2; Doc. 52-3 at 3; Doc. 52-6 at 0:48-1:28; Doc. 65 at 1. Further, while handcuffing Plaintiff, Defendant Sullivan did not observe Plaintiff wearing an arm sling or exhibiting any signs of visible injuries, and Plaintiff did not report any pain or discomfort to Defendant Sullivan.^[2] Doc. 52-1 at 3; Doc. 52-3 at 3; Doc. 52-6 at 00:48-4:00.

After securing Plaintiff, Defendant Sullivan performed a search of Plaintiff's pockets and clothing. Doc. 52-1 at 3; Doc. 52-3 at 3; Doc. 52-6 at 1:24-3:47; Doc. 65 at 1. Defendant Sullivan detected the odor of marijuana when searching Plaintiff. Doc. 52-1 at 3; Doc. 52-3 at 3; Doc. 52-6 at 7:50-8:00; Doc. 65 at 1. Then, Defendant Sullivan placed Plaintiff in the back of his police vehicle, advising him he was being detained for possible kidnapping and explaining to Plaintiff he was waiting for investigators to arrive.^[3] Doc. 52-1 at 3; Doc. 52-3 at 3-4; Doc. 52-6 at 3:48-4:42. After Defendant Sullivan finished addressing Plaintiff, Plaintiff asked Defendant Sullivan to go to his vehicle and get his wallet, as it contained information related to ongoing child custody disputes between Plaintiff and the child's mother.^[4] Doc. 52-1 at 4; Doc. 52-3 at 4; Doc. 52-6 at 4:18-4:30. During this conversation, Defendant Sullivan also advised Plaintiff to avoid making statements that may incriminate himself and again reiterated investigators were on their way. Doc. 52-1 at 3; Doc. 52-3 at 3-4; Doc. 52-6 at 4:30-6:36.

Shortly thereafter, two other officers from the Sheriff's Office arrived, Corporal L. Bowen and Sergeant S. Billington, to assist with the kidnapping investigation. Doc. 52-2 at 4; Doc. 52-3 at 4; Doc. 52-6 at 7:02. After the other officers arrived, Defendant Sullivan called in to the dispatcher the license plate of Plaintiff's vehicle and attempted to run it through the National Crime Information Center and Georgia Crime Information Center (NCIC/GCIC) databases, which are databases concerning warrants, stolen vehicles, licensing and registration. Doc. 52-1 at 4; Doc. 52-3 at 4; Doc. 52-6 at 7:06-7:26. However, unbeknownst to Defendant Sullivan and Plaintiff, the databases were not working. Doc. 52-1 at 4; Doc. 52-3 at 4; Doc. 52-6 at 10:20-10:28. Plaintiff then informed Defendant Sullivan his registration was expired. Doc. 52-1 at 4; Doc. 52-3 at 4; Doc. 52-6 at...