Fourth Circuit Issues Ruling Protecting Actions of Nuclear Plant Operator

by Pillsbury - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law

On November 20, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit decided the case of Cox, et al., v. Duke Energy, Inc. et al., affirming the ruling of the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina’s grant of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights lawsuit, holding

“(1) that Fleming had validly waived his right to sue the Darlington County Sheriff’s Office, the Sheriff, and the deputies; (2) that Duke Energy and its vice president were private actors not operating “under color of” state law as required for liability under § 1983; and (3) that Fleming’s remaining state law claims were preempted by federal law’s exclusive regulation of nuclear safety.”

On July 26, 2012, Robin Fleming, now deceased, flew his glider plane over Duke Energy’s H. B. Robinson Nuclear Plant, located in Darlington County, SC, causing consternation and alarm in plant personnel, the local Sheriff’s office, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and Shaw Air Force Base. He was ordered to land, where he was taken into custody and charged with a breach of the peace.

Before the trial, he agreed with his own counsel’s recommendation that he waive any civil claims he might have, and the charges would be dismissed. However, he later filed a lawsuit in state court, alleging that the acts of the named defendants violated his civil rights “under color of state law.”

The case was removed to federal court, where the defendants argued that Fleming had validly waived his rights to sue local law enforcement officials, neither Duke Energy nor its officers were acting under color of law and that, in any case, the state law claims were subject to federal preemption. These arguments were successful, and the District Court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

Applying the principles from Town of Newton v. Rumery, the Fourth Circuit rejected Fleming’s arguments that he did not voluntarily waive his civil rights claims.

“Not only is there no indication in the record that the time Fleming had to consider the proposal was insufficient, there is also no evidence of pressure from the opposing side. Rather, Fleming was alone with his attorney when he reached his decision. And it is further worth noting that Fleming, who was mature and educated, wrote the waiver in his own hand using his own language.”

The Fourth Circuit next agreed with the District Court’s conclusion that “Duke Energy and its personnel simply functioned as private actors assisting law enforcement, as any private actor would.” Duke Energy’s security personnel reported Fleming’s glider to the Sheriff’s Office after observing it flying over and circle near the Robinson Nuclear Plant, providing the  glider’s tail number. They then dispatched security team members to the Hartsville Airport “where one employee viewed the inside of Fleming’s glider and photographed it.” The Duke Energy personnel asked Fleming a single question — “whether he knew that the facility he had flown over was a nuclear plant, to which Fleming responded that he did.”

The Fourth Circuit confirmed that “the record makes clear, Fleming’s arrest and detention were effected only by the Sheriff’s Office, not by Duke Energy or due to any request made by Duke Energy.” “Moreover, Fleming’s allegation that Duke Energy employees provided misinformation does not make the employees state actors, any more than would a witness’s erroneous report to police of the license number of a vehicle fleeing a bank robbery.”

The Fourth Circuit rejected Fleming’s argument that when Duke Energy’s employees questioned him at the airport, the company was “act[ing] in a quasi-governmental capacity.” The Fourth Circuit noted that “Fleming makes no showing that the Duke Energy employees questioned him pursuant to a governmental request or for any governmental purpose.” Rather, it “had its own interest in the security of its plant, and obtaining information about a person who had flown near the plant was important to that interest.”

The Fourth Circuit next rejected Fleming’s argument that an internal Duke Energy email demonstrates that Duke Energy was “’integrally involved’ in the Sherriff’s Office’s decisions to arrest and charge Fleming.” The email stated:

“The control room was contacted by Security personnel regarding an unidentified airborne craft in the area near the plant. Further investigation and monitoring identified the craft as a glider. The tail number has been obtained by a security officer stationed in one of the BRE towers. This information has been forwarded to Darlington County Law enforcement to assist in determining the crafts origin in an effort to capture and detain the individual for further questioning. The individual has been apprehended at the Hartsville Airport by local law enforcement personnel.”

The Fourth Circuit confirmed that this email indicates nothing “more than the fact that Duke Energy was attempting to assist law enforcement in their efforts in connection with the incident.”

Ultimately, the Fourth Circuit concluded that “there is no evidence that Duke Energy had the requisite relationship to the Sheriff’s Office so as to convert its conduct into state action… and the district court correctly concluded therefore that Fleming failed to state a claim against Duke Energy and its vice president under § 1983.” (Internal citation omitted).

Finally, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling that the state law claims were preempted.

“Based on these actions by Congress, the Supreme Court in Pacific Gas concluded that ‘the Federal Government has occupied the entire field of nuclear safety concerns, except the limited powers expressly ceded to the States,’ such that ‘safety regulation of nuclear plants by States is forbidden.’ And the Court subsequently reiterated this conclusion in other cases regarding nuclear field preemption. Moreover, it explained further that state law causes of action are subject to field preemption when they ‘have some direct and substantial effect on the decisions made by those who build or operate nuclear facilities concerning radiological safety levels.'” (Internal citations omitted).

The Fourth Circuit noted that the defendants were sued because they allegedly acted negligently when they found Fleming’s glider to be suspicious and then provided inaccurate information to the Sheriff’s Department. But their conduct, “even if tortious, was responsive to the safety concerns governed exclusively by federal law,” and ” imposing liability based on such claims would have a ‘direct and substantial effect’ on decisions designed to ensure the facility’s safety.” It went on to confirm that “Duke Energy’s suspicions reflected the risks posed by an unidentified plane with an unknown purpose circling near a nuclear facility,” including “an intentional impact with the facility and the resulting release of radiation or possible surveillance in furtherance of a terrorist plot — especially salient threats in the aftermath of 9/11.”

“Until such legitimate suspicions were allayed, ultimately here through the questioning by the FBI and Homeland Security, the entire incident implicated the very nuclear safety concerns at the core of the field preempted by federal law.”

Moreover, the Fourth Circuit found that “subjecting the operators of nuclear facilities to tort liability for harms like those suffered by Fleming — i.e., harms inflicted by law enforcement officers responding to reports of security threats — would obviously affect the operators’ decisionmaking regarding the reporting of threats.” It found that the prospect of state damage awards would chill a company like Duke Energy’s willingness to inform the authorities when confronted with “an indeterminate phenomenon potentially implicating its security.”

The Fourth Circuit went onto confirm that its conclusion that the state tort claims “fall within the preempted field of nuclear safety” is further supported by several express directives issued by federal agencies, including the FAA and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.


DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Pillsbury - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Pillsbury - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law

Pillsbury - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.