Patrick Booker v. South Carolina DSS, No. 14-6473 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6473 PATRICK L. BOOKER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES; GREENVILLE COUNTY SHERIFF S OFFICE; BRANDY P. SULLIVAN; TAMMY CHILDS; SHAWNEE PEEPLES; KELLY P. KAROW, Defendants - Appellees, and GREENVILLE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (8:12-cv-00985-TMC) Submitted: August 29, 2014 Decided: September 9, 2014 Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Patrick L. Booker, Appellant Pro Se. Russell W. Harter, Jr., CHAPMAN, HARTER & HARTER, PA, Greenville, South Carolina; Paul L. Agnew, Abbeville, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Patrick Booker, a South Carolina prisoner, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012), alleging, in pertinent part, that the South Carolina Department of Social Services ( SCDSS ) and its agents, Brandy Sullivan, Shawnee Peeples, and Tammy Childs, violated his substantive and procedural due process rights when they temporarily removed his daughter, J.J., from the custody of her mother. summary judgment to each The district court granted defendant and subsequent Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. both orders. denied Booker s Booker now appeals We affirm. We review de novo a district court s order granting summary judgment. Cir. 2010). genuine Robinson v. Clipse, 602 F.3d 605, 607 (4th Summary judgment shall be granted when there is no dispute as to any material fact entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 56(a). and the movant is Fed. R. Civ. P. At the summary judgment stage, facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party only if there is a genuine dispute as to those facts. Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). A district court should grant summary judgment unless a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party on the evidence presented. (1986). Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 Conclusory or speculative allegations do not suffice, 3 nor does a mere scintilla nonmoving party s] case. 312 F.3d 645, 649 (4th of evidence in support of [the Thompson v. Potomac Elec. Power Co., Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). Booker claimed that Peeples violated his due process rights by taking emergency custody of J.J. in the absence of prior notice, a court order, or exigent circumstances. However, having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude that Peeples had an appropriately founded belief that J.J. and her siblings were in immediate danger, namely of being re-exposed narcotics by their mother or other family members. to See Weller v. Dep t of Soc. Servs. for the City of Balt., 901 F.2d 387, 391-92 (4th Cir. 1990). Under such circumstances, notice of the emergency removal was required. Further, we agree with the no prior court that Id. district Sullivan was entitled to absolute immunity from Booker s claim that she made intentional misstatements when preparing and presenting a petition for J.J. s retention in SCDSS s custody. Vosburg v. Dep t of Soc. Servs., 884 F.2d 133, 138 (4th Cir. 1989). Although not addressed by the district court, we also conclude that alleged failure resulting Youngstown, Sullivan s to probable 11 F.3d notify cause 652, absolute Booker immunity of hearing. 658-59 4 J.J. s See (6th extends to her removal and the City of Pusey Cir. v. 1993); see also Republican Party of N.C. v. Martin, 980 F.2d 943, 952 (4th Cir. 1992). Finally, we conclude that Booker s claims regarding Childs conduct in the wake of J.J. s removal failed to suggest a violation of his substantive due process rights and, therefore, that Childs was rightly granted qualified immunity. To survive summary judgment, evidence that Childs instead, unjustifiably maintain a was Booker more than intended relationship was merely to injure J.J. with required See to produce negligent Booker s Huggins but, right v. to Prince George s Cnty., 683 F.3d 525, 535 (4th Cir. 2012); Patten v. Nichols, 274 F.3d 829, 834 (4th Cir. 2001). factually unsupported allegations against Booker s sparse, Childs fell well short. Because the district court properly granted summary judgment and did not abuse its discretion in denying Booker s Rule 59(e) motion, we affirm the district court s orders. We grant Booker s motion for leave to file a supplemental pro se brief and legal contentions before dispense this court with oral argument are adequately and argument because presented would not in aid the the the facts and materials 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.