Tracey Gilyard v. Randy Benson, No. 14-1007 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1007 TRACEY BERNARD GILYARD; TIFFANY ADAMS, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. RANDY BENSON, Individually; RICHLAND DEPARTMENT; E. SHAW, Individually, COUNTY SHERIFF S Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (3:12-cv-01336-CMC) Submitted: September 17, 2014 Before NIEMEYER Circuit Judge. and KING, Circuit Decided: Judges, September 29, 2014 and DAVIS, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas Jefferson Goodwyn, Jr., GOODWYN LAW FIRM, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellants. Andrew F. Lindemann, Robert D. Garfield, DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Tracey Bernard Gilyard and Tiffany Adams appeal from the district court s orders granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants and denying their motion to alter or amend judgment in their civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) and South Carolina law. Appellants argue on appeal that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to Defendants on Gilyard s excessive claim force under and his § 1983 claim against under Defendant state law Shaw for for battery. We affirm. We review de novo the district court s award of summary judgment and view the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Woollard v. Gallagher, 712 F.3d 865, 873 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 422 (2013). Summary judgment is appropriate only if the record shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)). The Fourth Amendment s prohibition on unreasonable seizures includes the right to be free of seizures effectuated by excessive force. Henry v. Purnell, 652 F.3d (4th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). 524, 531 Whether an officer has used excessive force during an arrest is analyzed under a standard of objective reasonableness. 2 Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, jurisprudence 388, has 395-96, long 399 recognized (1989). Fourth that right the Amendment to make an arrest . . . necessarily carries with it the right to use some degree of physical coercion or threat thereof to effect it. Id. at 396. requires Determining whether the force used was reasonable the weighing of the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual s Fourth Amendment interests against the countervailing governmental interests at stake. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Factors to be considered include the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the actively resisting flight. Id. are underlying arrest or or others, and attempting to whether evade he [wa]s arrest by [T]he question is whether the officers actions objectively circumstances officers reasonable confronting intent or in light them, of without motivation. Id. the facts regard at to 397 and their (internal quotation marks omitted). Additionally, in considering whether an force, offer used reasonable moment that the force is employed. courts are to focus on the Henry, 652 F.3d at 531. Applying these standards, we conclude after review of the record and the parties briefs that the district court did not reversibly err in granting summary judgment to Defendants on Gilyard s claim against Shaw for excessive force. 3 Gilyard was belligerent and uncooperative, refusing to comply with Shaw s and Defendant Benson s verbal efforts to arrest him, positioning his body in a posture indicating his willingness to fight, and advancing toward Benson. Accordingly, a degree of force beyond their verbal commands was necessary to effectuate the arrest. We reject as without merit and unsupported by the evidence of record Gilyard s assertion on appeal that Shaw s use of a taser device to effectuate the arrest was unreasonable because Shaw and Benson had other options available to capture or subdue him. We also reject as without merit Gilyard s assertion that Shaw s receipt nearly a year before their encounter of a letter of guidance from the Richland County Sheriff s Department concerning his use of a taser device in a separate incident has any bearing on the constitutionality of the force Shaw employed in this case. Henry, 652 F.3d at 531; see Elliott v. Leavitt, 99 F.3d 640, 643 (4th Cir. 1996) ( Graham requires us to focus on the moment force was used; conduct prior to that moment is not relevant in determining whether an officer used reasonable force. ). We further reject as without merit Gilyard s challenge to the district court s disposition of his claim under state law for battery because the predicate for this challenge that the district court reversibly erred in granting summary judgment to Defendants on his claim under § 1983 against Shaw for excessive 4 force is not established. Gilyard s remaining Finally, we reject as without merit extraneous arguments for overturning the district court s judgment. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment. We dispense contentions with are oral argument adequately because presented in the facts and the materials legal before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 5
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
