Fourth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Ham-Burglar's Widow's Wrongful Death Suit

In an unpublished decision, the Fourth Circuit affirmed a district court's dismissal of a widow's Section 1983 action against officers from a South Carolina police department. The facts of the case were as follows:

On the afternoon of November 7, 2003, Wylder walked into a grocery store in
North Charleston, South Carolina. Wylder threatened grocery store clerks with a
serrated steak knife and took a package of ham before leaving the store. Police
officers confronted Wylder outside the store and, according to their testimony
and the testimony of several nearby eyewitnesses, repeatedly told him to drop
the knife and get on the ground. Wylder refused and ignored the warnings
while backing away from the officers, leading them across the street. Wylder
eventually dropped the ham, reached into his pocket, and pulled out a
screwdriver that he had sharpened to a point. The officers failed in their
attempts to disarm Wylder by using pepper spray and batons. During one of the
attempts, Wylder cut Officer David Neumann on the lip and chin with the
knife. When Wylder advanced toward the officers, Officer James Handy drew
his firearm and fired a single shot that hit Wylder. Wylder fell to one knee,
but he refused to drop the knife and attempted to get back to his
feet. Handy fired a second shot and Wylder fell to the ground, where
officers subdued and handcuffed him. Wylder died as a result of the gunshot wounds.

On appeal, Wylder's widow argued that the district court failed to look at the evidence in a light most favorable to her, as five bystanders testified that they did not see a weapon or Wylder provoke the officers. The Fourth Circuit, however, rejected this argument, stating that "[t]he discrepancies between the officers’ testimony and the observations of the bystanders who did not see the knife or Wylder’s aggressive actions are not enough to raise a material question of fact disputing the version of events described by the unimpeached witnesses and the consistent testimony of the officers." The court also rejected the argument that the officer's use of deadly force was unreasonable. Accordingly, it affirmed the district court's dismissal of the action.