Court Opinion

ID: 9401144
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-10 21:00:39.905324+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:50.632894
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1942      Doc: 28        Filed: 06/09/2023    Pg: 1 of 5

                                           UNPUBLISHED

                              UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                  FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 21-1942

        GORDANA SCHIFANELLI,

                            Plaintiff – Appellant,

                     v.

        QUEEN ANNE’S COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS,

                            Defendant – Appellee,

                     and

        MICHAEL CLARK, in his official and individual capacity; MATTHEW EVANS, in his
        official and individual capacity; CHRISTINE BETLEY, in her official and individual
        capacity; QUEEN ANNE’S COUNTY LOCAL MANAGEMENT BOARD,

                            Defendants.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:20-cv-02906-GLR)

        Submitted: February 17, 2023                                        Decided: June 9, 2023

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and DIAZ and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1942      Doc: 28         Filed: 06/09/2023    Pg: 2 of 5

        ON BRIEF: Marc D. Schifanelli, Stevensville, Maryland, for Appellant. Matthew D.
        Peter, Hanover, Maryland, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1942      Doc: 28          Filed: 06/09/2023     Pg: 3 of 5

        PER CURIAM:

               Gordana Schifanelli filed an amended complaint asserting multiple claims against

        the Queen Anne’s County Board of Commissioners (“the County Board”) and Michael

        Clark, in his individual capacity and in his official capacity as Director of the Queen Anne’s

        County Local Management Board. The district court dismissed the entire amended

        complaint, but Schifanelli challenges only the district court’s dismissal of her claim that

        the County Board violated her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, in violation of

        42 U.S.C. § 1983. We affirm.

               “We review de novo a district court’s decision to grant a motion to dismiss” under

        Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(6) and, “[w]hen doing so, we accept the factual allegations of the

        complaint as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.”

        Corder v. Antero Res. Corp., 57 F.4th 384, 401 (4th Cir. 2023) (internal quotation marks

        omitted). “To survive a motion to dismiss, the complaint’s factual allegations must be

        enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level—that is, the complaint must

        contain enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Bass v.

        Weinstein Mgmt. Co., 56 F.4th 355, 360-61 (4th Cir. 2022) (internal quotation marks

        omitted). “Labels, conclusions, recitation of a claim’s elements, and naked assertions

        devoid of further factual enhancement will not suffice.” ACA Fin. Guar. Corp. v. City of

        Buena Vista, 917 F.3d 206, 211 (4th Cir. 2019). Rather, “[t]o contain sufficient factual

        matter to make a claim plausible, the factual content must allow the court to draw the

        reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. at 212

        (internal quotation marks omitted).

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1942       Doc: 28          Filed: 06/09/2023      Pg: 4 of 5

               A local government body, like the County Board, cannot be held liable under § 1983

        for alleged acts of its employees under a respondeat superior theory. Monell v. Dep’t of

        Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 692-94 (1978). Instead, “it is when execution of a government’s

        policy or custom, whether made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may

        fairly be said to represent official policy, inflicts the injury that the government as an entity

        is responsible under § 1983.” Id. at 694; see Starbuck v. Williamsburg James City Cnty.

        Sch. Bd., 28 F.4th 529, 532-33 (4th Cir. 2022) (“Monell permits suits against a municipality

        for a federal constitutional deprivation only when the municipality undertook the allegedly

        unconstitutional action pursuant to an official policy or custom.” (internal quotation marks

        omitted)).

               While municipal liability under § 1983 attaches only to action taken pursuant to an

        official municipal policy or custom, “it is plain that municipal liability may be imposed for

        a single decision by municipal policymakers under appropriate circumstances.”

        Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 480 (1986). “Relying on this precedent,” we

        have “held that a government policy or custom need not have received formal approval

        through the municipality’s official decisionmaking channels to subject the municipality to

        liability.” Hunter v. Town of Mocksville, 897 F.3d 538, 554 (4th Cir. 2018) (cleaned up).

        Nor is it necessary for an official policy to “be broadly applicable to factual circumstances

        likely to be repeated.” Id. Rather, “we have recognized that a governmental unit may

        create an official policy by making a single decision regarding a course of action in

        response to particular circumstances so long as that governmental unit possessed final

        authority to create official policy.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, “in

                                                       4
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1942      Doc: 28         Filed: 06/09/2023      Pg: 5 of 5

        assessing whether a municipality may be held liable for the constitutional or statutory

        violations of their decisionmakers, the touchstone inquiry is whether the decisionmaker

        possesses final authority to establish municipal policy with respect to the action ordered.”

        Id. at 554-55 (internal quotation marks omitted). If the decisionmaker at issue does possess

        such authority, then his “actions may fairly be attributed as reflecting municipal policy.”

        Id. at 555.

               Municipal liability may also attach “through an omission, such as a failure to

        properly train officers, that manifests deliberate indifference to the rights of citizens.”

        Lytle v. Doyle, 326 F.3d 463, 471 (4th Cir. 2003) (cleaned up). Like above, the omission

        must be “on the part of policymaking officials.” Carter v. Morris, 164 F.3d 215, 218 (4th

        Cir. 1999).

               After reviewing the allegations in the amended complaint and the supplemental

        material added to the record, we conclude that the district court correctly determined that

        Schifanelli failed to allege facts sufficient to show that Clark possessed final policymaking

        authority such that his actions or inactions could be attributed to the County Board.

        Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. Schifanelli v. Queen Anne’s Cnty.

        Bd. of Comm’rs, No. 1:20-cv-02906-GLR (D. Md. Aug. 18, 2021). We dispense with oral

        argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

        before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                        AFFIRMED

                                                     5