From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dillard v. Fox

United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Bryson City Division
Jan 12, 2009
CIVIL CASE NO. 2:08cv016 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 12, 2009)

Summary

explaining and applying differences in official- and individual-capacity claims against supervisors

Summary of this case from Greene v. Cnty. of Durham Office of the Sheriff Dep't

Opinion

CIVIL CASE NO. 2:08cv016.

January 12, 2009


ORDER


THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation [Doc. 17], filed on October 8, 2008.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and the standing Orders of Designation of this Court, United States Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Howell was designated to consider the Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 9].

On October 8, 2008, the Magistrate Judge entered a Memorandum and Recommendation [Doc. 17], recommending that the Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 9] be granted in part and denied in part. The parties were advised that any objections to the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation were to be filed in writing within ten days of service of the same. The period within which to file objections has expired, and no written objections to the Memorandum and Recommendation have been filed.

After a careful review of the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation, the Court finds that the proposed findings of fact are supported by the record and that the proposed conclusions of law are consistent with current case law. Accordingly, the Court hereby accepts the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation [Doc. 17] that the Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 9] be granted in part and denied in part.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 9] is DENIED as to Plaintiff's Section 1983 claim against Sheriff Ashe in his personal capacity; GRANTED as to Plaintiff's demand for punitive damages against the Defendants in their official capacities; and DENIED as to Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages against the Defendants in their individual capacities. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that references in the Amended Complaint [Doc. 7] to "respondeat superior," insofar as such relate to Plaintiff's Section 1983 claims, are STRICKEN as impertinent.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Dillard v. Fox

United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Bryson City Division
Jan 12, 2009
CIVIL CASE NO. 2:08cv016 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 12, 2009)

explaining and applying differences in official- and individual-capacity claims against supervisors

Summary of this case from Greene v. Cnty. of Durham Office of the Sheriff Dep't
Case details for

Dillard v. Fox

Case Details

Full title:DUSTIN DILLARD, Plaintiff, v. SGT. JOHN FOX, Individually and as Deputy of…

Court:United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Bryson City Division

Date published: Jan 12, 2009

Citations

CIVIL CASE NO. 2:08cv016 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 12, 2009)

Citing Cases

Wesley v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Cnty. Police Dep't

The distinction between official and individual capacity suits under § 1983 has been explained in Dillard v.…

Hubbard v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department

a. Official Capacity This Court recently discussed the difference between official and individual capacity…