From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Thompson v. Dorchester

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Jun 9, 2008
280 F. App'x 328 (4th Cir. 2008)

Opinion

No. 07-1548.

Argued: May 13, 2008.

Decided: June 9, 2008.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:06-cv-00968-DCN).

ARGUED: John Allen O'Leary, O'Leary Associates, Inc., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellants. Caroline Wrenn Cleveland, Charleston, South Carolina; Alissa DeCarlo, Barnwell, Whaley, Patterson Helms, LLC, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: M. Dawes Cooke, Jr., John William Fletcher, Barnwell, Whaley, Patterson Helms, LLC, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee Tim Stephenson.

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, SHEDD, Circuit Judge, and CLAUDE M. HILTON, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia, sitting by designation.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


Appellants Jeffrey Thompson and John J. Smith appeal the district court's order denying relief on their complaint under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West 2003 Supp. 2007). Appellants, both former deputy sheriffs with the Dorchester County, South Carolina Sheriffs Department, contend that Dorchester County Sheriff Ray Nash and county staff members William French, John Barney Barnes, and Tim Stephenson (collectively "Appellees") violated their First Amendment rights by engaging in a pattern of harassment and intimidation because Appellants supported Nash's opponent in the sheriffs election. Applying the two-step framework set forth in Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 200, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001), the district court first concluded that Appellants had properly alleged a violation of a constitutional right to be free from harassment based on their support of Sheriff Nash's opponent in the election but then also concluded that such right was not clearly established at the time of Appellees' alleged actions. Accordingly, the court granted Appellees' motion to dismiss on the basis of qualified immunity.

To be clear, the district court did not find a constitutional violation to the extent that Appellants' claims were predicated on job termination. See Jenkins v. Medford, 119 F.3d 1156 (4th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (holding that sheriff's patronage dismissals of deputy sheriffs did not violate the First Amendment because deputy sheriffs were policymakers).

Appellants also allege a claim based on their right to a "secret ballot." As the district court recognized, however, the Supreme Court has never recognized secrecy in voting as a constitutionally-guaranteed right.

We have reviewed the record, the district court's thorough opinion, and heard oral argument in this case, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm based substantially on the reasoning of the district court. See Thompson v. Dorchester County Sheriffs Dep't, No. 2:06-cv-00968-DCN (D.S.C. May 4, 2007).

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Thompson v. Dorchester

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Jun 9, 2008
280 F. App'x 328 (4th Cir. 2008)
Case details for

Thompson v. Dorchester

Case Details

Full title:Jeffrey THOMPSON; John J. Smith, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. DORCHESTER…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Date published: Jun 9, 2008

Citations

280 F. App'x 328 (4th Cir. 2008)