Cheryl A. Davidson v. City of Gaffney

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1681
CHERYL A. DAVIDSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
CITY OF GAFFNEY; JAMES TAYLOR; JOHN O’DONALD;
SLED; DARRELL BETSILL,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-04-928-20-BI)
Submitted: October 6, 2004 Decided: October 27, 2004
Before MICHAEL, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Cheryl A. Davidson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Cheryl A. Davidson filed an action in the district court
alleging that she was wrongfully terminated from the Gaffney, South
Carolina, Police Department after twenty-two years of service.
Davidson also alleged false arrest, malicious prosecution, and
defamation of character arising out of her arrest and prosecution
for forgery, which was later dropped.
The magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation
characterizing Davidson’s claims as a wrongful termination action
governed by state law and concluded that because both parties
resided in South Carolina, the court was without jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the magistrate judge recommended that the action be
dismissed without prejudice. As required, Davidson filed
objections to the magistrate judge’s report stating that she was
seeking monetary damages for a host of violations including false
arrest and false imprisonment. Noting that Davidson filed
objections to the magistrate judge’s report, but concluding that
she failed to expressly raise the issue of jurisdiction, the
district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation and
dismissed the action. However, liberally construed, we believe
that Davidson’s claims of false arrest and false imprisonment give
the court jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000).
Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order dismissing the

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
action for lack of jurisdiction and remand the case for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED

-- 3 of 3 --