Background
Sylvester Demetrius Selby was suffering from a stab wound when Dare County sheriff’s deputies DuWayne Gibbs and Edward Glaser III responded to a late-night request for medical assistance. Selby emerged from a home holding a kitchen knife and an apple. Although ordered to drop the knife, he retained it and jumped down the porch steps toward the deputies. Glaser fired once.
After falling and dropping the knife, Selby continued moving, got up, and lunged in Glaser’s direction. Glaser fired two more shots, and Selby died at the scene. Legacy Spencer, as administrator of Selby’s estate, sued Glaser and the Dare County Sheriff under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and North Carolina law. The district court relied heavily on the deputies’ body-camera footage and dismissed the amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6).
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Circuit affirmed. It held that a court deciding a motion to dismiss may consider an authentic video integral to the complaint when the video blatantly contradicts the complaint’s allegations or clearly depicts contrary facts. Although the district court crossed that line in some respects, the footage properly refuted two material assertions: that Selby appeared to be surrendering before the first shot and that he did not lunge toward the deputies before the later shots.
The court concluded that Spencer failed to plausibly allege a Fourth Amendment violation. She forfeited any challenge to the ruling concerning the first shot, and the circumstances nevertheless showed that a reasonable officer could view Selby’s armed, noncompliant advance as an imminent threat. The second and third shots were also objectively reasonable because Selby rose and lunged toward Glaser only seconds after advancing with the knife, permitting a reasonable officer to believe the threat had not ended. The state-law assault-and-battery and wrongful-death claims also failed because Spencer tied them to the unsuccessful constitutional theory and Glaser’s conduct did not violate North Carolina’s deadly-force standard; without underlying liability by Glaser, the official-capacity claims against the sheriff likewise failed.
Key Takeaways
- At the Rule 12(b)(6) stage, authentic video integral to a complaint may override allegations only when it clearly depicts contrary facts or utterly discredits the plaintiff’s account.
- Deadly force was objectively reasonable where Selby ignored commands, advanced with a knife, and—after being shot and dropping the knife—rose and lunged toward the officer.
- An officer need not confirm that a rapidly approaching suspect is armed when the surrounding circumstances reasonably indicate an imminent threat of serious harm.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates both the power and the limits of body-camera footage at the pleading stage. Courts may use unmistakable video evidence to reject contradicted allegations, but they may not freely resolve every factual dispute or draw unsupported factual conclusions from the recording.
For excessive-force litigation, the opinion also emphasizes that each use of force must be assessed under the totality of the circumstances. Earlier threatening conduct may shape what a reasonable officer perceives moments later, even after a suspect has dropped the initially observed weapon.