Booker, who is currently serving time in Pulaski State Prison, had accused those named in the suit of "punishing citizens on the basis of their sexual orientation and religious beliefs," according to the initial complaint filed by her attorney, Tony Perrotta.
On Jan. 5 of this year, defendants in the case filed a motion for summary judgment on the case, which stemmed from a series of events in 2010 wherein Booker was not taken to Northwest Georgia Regional Hospital as directed and instead was transferred to a rehabilitation facility with a religious connection.
According to the summary judgment, Booker had "several brief interactions" with Mayton and Bartow County Sheriff's Deputy Pamela Ploof in 2009 and 2010.
On April 22, 2010, Booker's "mother and grandmother signed a probate affidavit stating Plaintiff was a harm to herself, a harm to others, and chemically dependent," the judgment reads.
Ploof and another deputy were dispatched to execute the order, and Booker experienced a seizure during transport, with Ploof summoning an ambulance to transport the woman to Cartersville Medical Center. Ploof testified that she advised the hospital staff of the order and "assumed that Cartersville Medical Center would evaluate Plaintiff consistent with the committal order."
While at CMC, Booker said she asked to call Mayton because her probation officer wanted a drug screen, which she knew she would fail, according to the court documents. "Plaintiff testified that she trusted Defendant Mayton because Defendant Mayton did what he said he would do, and she wanted to explain to Defendant Mayton that her actions were not 'a slap in his face.'"
According to testimony, Mayton was unaware of the committal order and agreed to find Booker a safe place to stay and to locate an alternative recovery facility, the summary judgment reads.
After several days with her friend, Booker was advised that Mayton had found a treatment location with a religious affiliation. And, although Booker testified that she was concerned about what the staff would say about her sexual orientation, she never expressed her fears to Mayton, according to court records.
After leaving the rehabilitation facility, Booker returned to drug use, according to court documents, and later was arrested by Mayton at her mother's home.
In the 72-page judgment, the court stated that Booker's claims that the defendants denied her adequate medical care fails in light of Ploof transporting her to CMC. "Once medical personnel treated Plaintiff, Defendants Ploof and Mayton were entitled to rely on the professional judgment of those medical personnel," the summary reads.
As to Booker's argument that "Ploof and Mayton were not authorized to take Plaintiff into custody, that argument also fails," because as a non-compliant probationer Ploof and Mayton "had probable cause to take Plaintiff into custody. ..."
Likewise, Booker's assertions that her First Amendment rights were violated were dismissed because "the evidence fails to indicate Plaintiff ever clearly expressed her religious concerns," "the evidence does not indicate Defendant Mayton chose [the facility] because of its religious basis," and finally, the evidence demonstrates that a Superior Court judge and Booker's probation officer made the approval for the religious facility, not Ploof and Mayton.
Defense attorney Kevin Morris of Williams, Morris & Waymire said Friday he was pleased with the outcome.
"Obviously, we are very happy with the court's decision," he said. "All along it was apparent to us that the allegations being made by Ms. Booker and her lawyers were unfounded, and the fact that Judge Murphy dispensed with this case less than a week after the briefs were submitted proved us right.
"From day one, it was vitally important for me to clear all of the defendants' names, especially Capt. Mark Mayton who has spent his law enforcement career helping people, and now that the court has dismissed Ms. Booker's lawsuit, each of the defendants is very pleased and ready to move on with the business of Bartow County."
Mayton said he felt the ruling was just.
"I think the judge saw it for exactly what it was and ruled appropriately," he said. "And we've said from the get-go that, you know, we didn't do anything wrong. All we were trying to do is help an individual that needed help."
Millsap also was satisfied with the judge's decision.
"We were very pleased with the outcome," he said. "I was confident in the fact that we would get summary judgment based on the facts of the case. There was no merit to the lawsuit whatsoever."