Civil Rights – Search & Seizure – Hospital Room – Civil Practice – Service of Process

Arora v. James (Lawyers Weekly No. 002-176-15, 25 pp.) (J. Michelle Childs, J.) 5:14-cv-00018; D.S.C.

Holding: Plaintiffs assert that (1) campus police officers entered the plaintiff-instructor’s hospital room without consent, (2) the defendant-hospital security guard asked the officers to leave but did not call the local sheriff or have the officers arrested, so (3) the security guard effectively condoned the officers’ criminal activity. However, plaintiffs’ evidence does not show that the security guard subjected plaintiffs to any type of unlawful search or seizure.

The court grants the hospital defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The complaint is dismissed without prejudice as to the college defendants.

Plaintiffs forecasted no evidence that the defendant-hospital has a “custom or policy of allowing trespasser [sic], intruders, criminals (Not Guests)” on hospital premises and in private rooms or a policy allowing “anyone to come to the premises with gun and with criminal inten[t].” Plaintiffs’ conclusory allegations do not establish the existence of a policy or custom of the hospital that inflicted injury on plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs have not served the college defendants with process. Plaintiffs’ opposition to the magistrate judge’s recommendation and report is based on their erroneous belief that personal jurisdiction exists over the college defendants based on the entry of appearance by the college defendants’ counsel. The court agrees with the magistrate judge that the college defendants are entitled to dismissal for insufficient service of process.