Samuel L. McCrary v. Detective B. Benfield

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

SAMUEL L. MCCRARY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) 1:24CV428 ) DETECTIVE B. BENFIELD, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On March 20, 2025, in Rowan County 22, 23, 23-1, 26. McCrary responded, Superior Court, Samuel L. McCrary but only with a brief arguing in pled guilty to indecent liberties with a support of his claims. Docket Entry child and intimidating a witness. Ten 25. Accordingly, the undisputed months earlier, though, he brought evidence before the Court shows that this related action against Detective B. Benfield is entitled to judgment as a Benfield of the Rowan County matter of law. The Court should grant Sheriff’s Office challenging his arrest, his motion and dismiss this action. the charges against him, his high secured bond, and his treatment in I. UNDISPUTED FACTS the Rowan County Detention Center In early May 2023, McCrary’s wife (“RCDC”). reported to an officer that McCrary

had been sexually molesting her McCrary alleges that Benfield fourteen-year-old daughter unlawfully arrested him, used his (“minor”), who then advised Benfield. power to manipulate magistrates to Aff. Detective B.C. Benfield ¶ 2 (Nov. impose excessive bonds and charges, 19, 2025), Docket Entry 23-1. Benfield and ordered officers at the RCDC to immediately began investigating. Id. place McCrary on suicide watch in a dry cell with no access to water for As part of his investigation, he seven days. See Compl. § II.D., Docket contacted McCrary’s wife. Id. ¶ 3. She Entry 2. told Benfield that McCrary did not

have a valid driver’s license but Benfield has moved for summary sometimes drove anyway, particularly judgment and submitted his sworn to a restaurant on Thursdays for Affidavit in support. Docket Entries dinner. Id. Benfield found her advances to her. Id. ¶¶ 9, 10 reliable, so he passed this information (describing statements in two videos to the patrol unit. Id. That was the as examples). extent of Benfield’s participation in the events leading to McCrary’s May Based on the evidence he discovered 5, 2023 traffic stop and arrest for during his investigation, Benfield driving with a revoked license. Id. ¶ 4. determined there was probable cause And he had no role in the Magistrate’s to believe that McCrary had decision to impose bond on McCrary. committed acts of indecent liberties Id. with a child and child abuse. Id. ¶¶ 1, 12. On July 20, 2023, he presented Benfield continued the sexual assault the evidence to a magistrate. Id. ¶ 12. investigation. Id. ¶ 5. In addition to The magistrate found probable cause interviewing McCrary’s wife, he and issued an arrest warrant for interviewed the minor more than McCrary charging him with eight once, and she told Benfield that counts of indecent liberties with a McCrary touched her genitalia in a child and one count of felony child sexual manner on multiple occasions abuse. Id. over a period of years. Id. Benfield credited her account. Id. That same day, a deputy arrested McCrary who was at the courthouse On May 18, Benfield went to the on another matter. Id. ¶ 13. Benfield Terrie Hess Child Advocacy Center was present for the arrest but did not and watched a forensic interview of accompany McCrary and the deputy the minor. Id. ¶ 6. The information any further and had nothing to do she provided was consistent with with the bond that the magistrate set. what she had told Benfield. Id. She Id. reported that McCrary had inappropriately touched her private The following day, July 21, Benfield parts more than once and almost received a text message from every other night. Id. McCrary’s wife expressing concern over comments he made to her Benfield then reviewed text messages daughter that he would harm himself McCrary had sent to the minor. Id. if he went back to jail. Id. ¶ 14. ¶ 7. Some messages were cryptic, Finding her statements credible, while others seemed to request or Benfield reported this to the jail, as pressure the minor to do something was his duty. Id. That was the extent for McCrary. Id. ¶¶ 7, 8 (describing of his involvement with this two messages as examples). In information. He did not order or addition to the text messages, direct the RCDC officers to do Benfield reviewed videos on the anything. Id. minor’s cellphone which he believed corroborated the minor’s statement In February 2024, Benfield learned about McCrary making sexual that McCrary had contacted his wife. Id. ¶ 15. She brought Benfield two and intimidating a witness. Aff. letters McCrary had just sent her, the Benfield ¶ 18. The court sentenced contents of which Benfield believed him to twenty-seven to forty-two constituted witness intimidation. Id. months’ imprisonment. Id. ¶¶ 16, 17 (quoting from the letters). After confirming this with the Because the undisputed evidence Assistant District Attorney, Benfield shows that Benfield did not violate presented the evidence to a McCrary’s rights as he alleges, the magistrate who found probable cause Court should grant Benfield’s motion and issued a warrant charging for summary judgment and dismiss McCrary with witness intimidation. this action. Id. ¶ 17. A deputy served the warrant II. STANDARD OF REVIEW on McCrary while he was in jail. Id. A court “shall grant summary In May 2024, McCrary filed the judgment if the movant shows that instant action against Benfield. He there is no genuine dispute as to any alleges, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, material fact and the movant is that Benfield subjected him to entitled to judgment as a matter of unlawful arrest and cruel and unusual law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A genuine punishment. See generally Compl. dispute of material fact exists “if the More specifically, McCrary contends evidence is such that a reasonable jury that Benfield requested deputies could return a verdict for the arrest him on May 5, 2023 for driving nonmoving party.” Anderson v. without a license so that Benfield Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 “could carry out further plans to keep (1986). [him] in custody” and “charge [him] with false allegations.” Id. According In analyzing a summary judgment to McCrary, he was “[t]aken to motion, courts “must construe all magistrates and placed under secure facts and reasonable inferences in the bond due to orders from B. Benfield.” light most favorable to the nonmoving Id. He alleges that Benfield again party.” Bandy v. City of Salem, 59 arrested him in July “for false F.4th 705, 709 (4th Cir. 2023). The allegations” and placed him into moving party bears the burden of suicide watch custody from July 21 establishing the absence of a genuine through July 28, 2023 during which dispute of material fact by several officers denied him access to “identifying those portions of ‘the water. Id. But McCrary provided pleadings, depositions, answers to neither evidence of these accusations interrogatories, and admissions on in response to Benfield’s motion for file, together with the affidavits, if any’ summary judgment nor a verified which it believes demonstrates the complaint. absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 On March 20, 2025, McCrary pled guilty to indecent liberties with a child U.S. 317, 323 (1986) (quoting Rule of state law. Philips v. Pitt Cty. Mem’l 56). Hosp., 572 F.3d 176, 180 (4th Cir. 2009). A plaintiff bringing suit “An affidavit or declaration used to pursuant to Section 1983 must show support [summary judgment] must that a person acting under color of be made on personal knowledge, set state law violated a Constitutional or out facts that would be admissible in other federal legal right. West v. evidence, and show that the affiant or Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). declarant is competent to testify on the matters stated.” Fed. R. Civ. P. Here, McCrary alleges Benfield 56(c)(4); see also Evans v. Techs. violated his rights to be free from Applications & Serv. Co., 80 F.3d 954, unlawful arrest and cruel and unusual 962 (4th Cir. 1996) (citing Williams v. punishment, but provides no evidence Griffin, 952 F.2d 820, 823 (4th Cir. to support those allegations in 1991)). “‘As a general rule, . . . the response to Benfield’s motion for non-movant cannot merely rely on summary judgment. matters pleaded in the complaint, but must, by factual affidavit or the like, Benfield asserts that he is entitled respond to the motion.’” Goodman v. judgment as a matter of law and to Diggs, 986 F.3d 493, 498 (4th Cir. qualified immunity. The undersigned 2021) (quoting Williams, 952 F.2d at recommends the Court find the same. 823). However, a verified complaint “‘is the equivalent of an affidavit for A. Benfield is entitled to summary summary judgment purposes, when judgment on the unlawful the allegations contained therein are arrest claim. based on personal knowledge.’” Id. (quoting Williams, 952 F.2d at 823). McCrary challenges the legality of his arrests on May 5, 2023 during the The non-moving party “cannot rest on traffic stop and on July 20, 2023 at unsupported statements in his brief to the courthouse and the resulting create a genuine dispute of fact,” pretrial detention. And he alleges Vaden v. Enochs, No. 7:21CV155, Benfield is at the heart of each of those 2022 WL 520804, at *4 (W.D. Va. unlawful actions. Feb. 22, 2022). The Fourth Amendment protects III. DISCUSSION “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons . . . against Title 42, United States Code, Section unreasonable . . . seizures.” Not only 1983 “is a federal statutory remedy does that protection apply to arrests, available to those deprived of rights but it also applies to detention secured to them by the Constitution pending trial. See Manuel v. City of and, in a more sharply limited way, Joliet, 580 U.S. 357, 365 (2017). the statutory laws of the United States” by persons acting under color “To establish an unreasonable seizure alleged violation of rights. See Wilcox under the Fourth Amendment, [the v. Brown, 877 F.3d 161, 170 (4th Cir. plaintiff] needs to show that the 2017) (affirming dismissal of claim officers decided to arrest [him] . . . where the plaintiff failed to allege the without probable cause.” Brown v. defendant’s personal involvement). Gilmore, 278 F.3d 362, 367 (4th Cir. Because the undisputed evidence 2002). However, “[w]hen a police shows that Benfield was not officer protects a suspect’s rights by personally involved in the May 5, obtaining a warrant from a neutral 2023 arrest and related bond magistrate, the officer should, in turn, determination and detention, receive some protection from suit McCrary’s claim related to this arrest under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” Torchinsky fails. v. Siwinski, 942 F.2d 257, 262 (4th Cir. 1991). “Generally speaking, a As for McCrary’s July 20, 2023 arrest police officer may rely on a for indecent liberties with a child and magistrate’s determination that felony child abuse, Benfield’s probable cause exists for an arrest.” undisputed evidence again shows that Swick v. Wilde, No. 1:10-cv-303, 2012 he did not unlawfully arrest or detain WL 3780350, at *7 (M.D.N.C. Aug. 31, McCrary. Benfield presented 2012) (citing Torchinsky). Of course, evidence of those crimes to a “when . . . a judge’s probable-cause magistrate who determined there was determination is predicated solely on probable cause to charge McCrary a police officer’s false statements,” with and arrest him for the offenses. “[t]hen . . . a person is confined Therefore, McCrary’s arrest on the without constitutionally adequate warrant was reasonable. justification.” Manuel, 580 U.S. at 367. Furthermore, the undisputed evidence supports the magistrate’s Benfield presents undisputed finding of probable cause. See N.C. evidence, by way of his affidavit, that Gen. Stat. § 14-202.1(a) (providing the extent of his involvement in elements of the crime of taking McCrary’s May 5, 2023 arrest was indecent liberties with a minor). relaying to a patrol officer Benfield conducted a months’ long information about his driving without investigation involving interviews a license on Thursdays to dinner. He with the minor’s mother, multiple did not order or participate in the interviews with the minor, arrest nor was he present for the observation of the minor’s forensic arrest. Likewise, he was not involved interview, and a review of text whatsoever in the magistrate’s bond messages and videos between the determination or McCrary’s detention minor and McCrary. Each piece of stemming from that arrest. For evidence corroborated the § 1983 liability to attach, a defendant allegations. Nothing before the Court must have personally acted in the shows that Benfield did anything other than present the evidence as he warrant secured by probable cause is knew it to the magistrate. McCrary’s the antithesis to unlawful seizure. arrest on a warrant procured with probable cause forecloses his claim And McCrary pled guilty to this for this arrest. charge, which, as previously noted, establishes that probable cause Furthermore, not only did the supported his arrest. See Humphreys, magistrate determine there was 2023 WL 2692433, at *6. probable cause to believe McCrary had committed indecent liberties with B. Benfield is entitled to summary a minor, but McCrary ultimately pled judgment on the cruel and guilty to the crime. And under unusual punishment claim. applicable North Carolina law, McCrary’s guilty plea to indecent McCrary contends that Benfield liberties with a minor “establish[es] subjected him to cruel and unusual that [there was] probable cause to punishment when he ordered arrest [him] for [the] offense[].” McCrary’s placement on suicide Humphreys v. Rowan-Salisbury Bd. watch in a dry cell without access to of Educ., No. 1:21-cv-432, 2023 WL water for seven days in July 2023. 2692433, at *6 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 29, 2023). Accordingly, McCrary’s claim As the Supreme Court recognized for unlawful seizure related to his decades ago, “[a] person lawfully arrest on these charges fails. committed to pretrial detention has not been adjudged guilty of any crime. The same is true for McCrary’s He has had only a judicial February 2024 arrest for witness determination of probable cause as a intimidation, to the extent he prerequisite to [the] extended challenges its propriety. The restraint of [his] liberty following undisputed evidence shows that arrest.” Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, Benfield read the letters that McCrary 536 (1979) (internal quotation sent his wife and believed that at least omitted) (alterations in original). the most recent letter constituted “[T]he Government concededly may witness intimidation. He first took detain him to ensure his presence at the evidence to an Assistant District trial and may subject him to the Attorney who agreed that there was restrictions and conditions of the probable cause to believe McCrary detention facility so long as those had attempted to intimidate a conditions and restrictions do not witness. As he had before, Benfield amount to punishment, or otherwise then presented the evidence to a violate the Constitution.” Id. at 536- magistrate who found probable cause 37. to charge McCrary with witness intimidation and issue a warrant for Assuming that McCrary was placed in his arrest. McCrary’s arrest on a a cell without access to water for seven days, the undisputed evidence is that prongs of the qualified immunity Benfield did not place McCrary in analysis: whether a_ statutory or those conditions or direct or order constitutional violation has occurred anyone else to do so. Instead, and, if so, whether the right was Benfield received information from clearly established at the time of the McCrary’s wife that he had threatened violation. See Harrold v. Hagen, 174 to harm himself. Pursuant to the F.4th 393, 401-02 (4th Cir. 2026). “If Rowan County Sheriffs Office policy, the answer to either question is ‘no,’ Benfield reported this information to the officer being sued is entitled to the RCDC staff. He had nothing to do qualified immunity.” Id. at 402 (citing with the conditions of McCrary’s Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, detention. Without his personal 232 (2009)). involvement, Benfield cannot be liable pursuant to § 1983. See Wilcox, Here, as explained above, the 877. F.3d at 170. Accordingly, undisputed evidence shows that McCrary’s claim of cruel and unusual Benfield did not violate McCrary’s punishment fails as a matter of law. constitutional rights. Therefore, Benfield is entitled to qualified C. Because there is no immunity. constitutional violation, Benfield is entitled to qualified IV. CONCLUSION immunity. IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED Qualified immunity protects that the Court GRANT Detective B. government officials from § 1983 suits Benfield’s Motion for Summary “who commit constitutional Judgment and dismiss the case with violations but who, in light of clearly prejudice. established law, could reasonably believe that their actions were lawful.” This the 29th day of June, 2026. Ruffin v. Davis, 174 F.4th 414, 418 (4th Cir. 2026). Thus, there are two

J a cad McFadden United States Magistrate Judge