4:16-cv-02576-BHH Date Filed 10/26/17 Entry Number 40 Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION

JANE DOE-3, ) C.A. 4:16-CV-02576-BHH

)
Plaintiff, )
)
Vs. )
) NOTICE OF MOTION AND
HORRY COUNTY, HORRY COUNTY ) MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
POLICE DEPARTMENT, TROY ALLEN )
LARGE, SAUNDRA RHODES, )
SCOTT RUTHERFORD, THOMAS )
DELPERCIO, WILLIAM SQUIRES, and )
DALE BUCHANAN, )
)
Defendant. )
___________________________________ )

YOU WILL PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT Defendant Troy Allen Large, by and

through its undersigned attorney, Bonnie Travaglio Hunt, hereby moves before this Court

requesting an Order granting for Summary Judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. The Plaintiff

files this motion on the basis that the Plaintiff has failed to show a genuine issue of material fact

that would allow any of her claims to proceed to trial.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED;

HUNT LAW LLC

s/Bonnie Travaglio Hunt

Attorney for the Plaintiff
Post Office Box 1845
Goose Creek, SC 29445
(843)553-8709
Facsimile (843)553-8710
bthunt@huntlawllc.com
October 26, 2017
 4:16-cv-02576-BHH Date Filed 10/26/17 Entry Number 40-1 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION

JANE DOE-3, ) C.A. 4:16-CV-02576-BHH

)
Plaintiff, )
)
Vs. )
)
HORRY COUNTY, HORRY COUNTY )
POLICE DEPARTMENT, TROY ALLEN )
LARGE, SAUNDRA RHODES, )
SCOTT RUTHERFORD, THOMAS )
DELPERCIO, WILLIAM SQUIRES, and )
DALE BUCHANAN, )
)
Defendant. )
___________________________________ )

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY

DEFENDANT, TROY ALLEN LARGE

The Defendant, Troy Allen Large, through his undersigned counsel, hereby submits his

Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The Plaintiff filed the above referenced action on June 13, 2016 in Horry County Court of

Common Pleas alleging several causes of action against all defendants. The only cause of action

against the Defendant, Troy Allen Large was violation of Due Process Clause of the 14th

Amendment through 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. The Defendants removed the case to Federal Court

on July 18, 2016 based on a Federal Question. The parties have conducted discovery and the

matter is now ripe for Summary Judgment. The Defendant, Troy Allen Large now files a Motion

for Summary Judgment based on the fact that the Plaintiff has failed to present a genuine issue of

material fact.
 4:16-cv-02576-BHH Date Filed 10/26/17 Entry Number 40-1 Page 2 of 4

SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

Summary Judgment is the means by which parties can request dismissal of cases that may

not meet the legal requirements of the cause of action set forth in the partys complaint. Summary

Judgment is only appropriate when the both requirements of Rule 56(c) have been met.1 The

judge is not to weigh the evidence but rather must determine if there is a genuine issue for trial.2

A genuine issue of material fact is where a genuine dispute is shown to exist if sufficient evidence

is presented such a reasonable fact finder could decide the issue in favor of the non-movant.3

An issue of material fact is defined as a genuine issue if a reasonable jury could return a

verdict for the non-moving party based on the facts presented on the element at issue.4 If, and

only if the moving party has shown that no genuine issue of material fact exists in the record as it

stands at the time of the hearing5 it may then go on to attempt to satisfy its second burden of

proof. The second burden of proof for the moving party is met only if the moving party shows

1
Celotex Corp. v. Cartrett, 477 U.S. 317, 106 S.Ct. 2584, 91 L.E.2d 265, 274 (1986).
2
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986)
3
A genuine dispute is shown to exist if sufficient evidence is presented such that a reasonable
fact finder could decide the issue in favor of the non-movant. Sweats Fashions, Inc. v. Pannill
Knitting Co., 833 F.2d 1560, 1562 (Fed.Cir.1987). In other words, a motion for summary
judgment is properly granted only, "If the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and
admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to
any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." A.B.
Chance Co. v. RTE Corp., 854 F.2d 1307, 1310 (Fed.Cir.1988). If the moving party satisfies its
burden, summary judgment must be granted unless the non-movant presents evidence sufficient to
establish the existence of a genuine issue of material fact. See SRI Int'l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp.,
775 F.2d 1107, 1116 (Fed.Cir.1985). To establish the existence of a genuine issue of material fact,
the non-movant "must point to an evidentiary conflict in the record; mere denials or conclusory
statements are insufficient." Id. (citing Barmag Barmer Maschinenfabrik AG v. Murata Mach.,
731 F.2d 831, 836 (Fed.Cir.1984)). Whether the above standards for summary judgment have been
met and whether the procedural and substantive law was correctly applied by the district court is
reviewed de novo by this court. Mingus Constructors, Inc. v. United States, 812 F.2d 1387, 1390
(Fed.Cir.1987).
4
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. 477 U.S. 242, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 Led.2d 202, 212.
5
Of course, each party has the right, pursuant to Rule 6(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, to introduce affidavits up until one day before the hearing date.
 4:16-cv-02576-BHH Date Filed 10/26/17 Entry Number 40-1 Page 3 of 4

that the record (in which no genuine issues of material fact exist), even if read in a light most

favorable to the non-moving party, affording the non-moving party every factual and legal

inference in its favor as required in Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986).6

Summary Judgment is not a disfavored procedural shortcut, but an important

mechanism for weeding out claims and defenses (that) have no factual basis.7

ARGUMENT

In order to maintain a successful Section 1983 action, the Plaintiff needs to demonstrate

the following:

In any Section 1983 action the initial inquiry must focus on whether the two
essential elements to a Section 1983 action are present: (1) whether the conduct
complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law; and (2)
whether this conduct deprived a person of rights, privileges, or immunities secured
by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527,
527, 101 S.Ct. 1908. 1909 (1981).

The Plaintiffs only presentation of facts is that Defendant, Large, violated the Plaintiffs

rights by coercing her to participate in nude, sexual-fetish catfights and sexually assaulting her.

The Defendant at no time acted under the color of state law or violated the Constitutional rights of

the Plaintiff.8

The Defendant, Large, hereby incorporates the facts and arguments as set forth by the other

Defendants in order to save the Court time and arguments.. The Defendant, Large also sets forth

6
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c).
7
Celotex, 477 U.S. at 327.
8
Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978), a local
government may not be sued under 1983 for an injury inflicted by its employee or agent unless
the injury was inflicted pursuant to official government policy. A local government cannot be
held liable in a 1983 action under a theory of respondeat superior. Id.; see also Todd v. Smith,
305 S.C. 227, 407 S.E.2d 644 (1991); cf. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73
L.Ed.2d 396 (1982); Cone v. Nettles, 308 S.C. 109, 417 S.E.2d 523 (1992) (suit against official
in individual capacity).
 4:16-cv-02576-BHH Date Filed 10/26/17 Entry Number 40-1 Page 4 of 4

that at all times the idea of fighting in the cat fights was arranged and provided for by the Plaintiff,

Doe.

During the alleged actions that supposedly violate the Plaintiffs Constitutional rights the

Plaintiff, Doe failed to report these issues and in her deposition testified that she called the Police

on several other occasions but refused to call them in regards to Large. The Plaintiffs allegations

do not rise to the level of constitutional violations. Mr. Large never arrested the Plaintiff, never

failed to give her Miranda rights, never used force. At all times any relationship between the two

was of a personal nature and not as a police officer and therefore not a violation of her

constitutional rights.

The Defendant, Large is entitled to Qualified immunity and 11th Amendment Immunity.

The State of South Carolina has not waived its sovereign immunity. Therefore, the Plaintiff cannot

pursue a cause of action pursuant to 1983 as the Defendant, Large is not subject to suit.

CONCLUSION

As set forth in the other Defendants memorandums all Defendants should be granted

summary judgment and the Plaintiffs claims should be dismissed in totality.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED;

HUNT LAW LLC

s/Bonnie Travaglio Hunt

Attorney for the Plaintiff
Post Office Box 1845
Goose Creek, SC 29445
(843)553-8709
Facsimile (843)553-8710
bthunt@huntlawllc.com
October 26, 2017