Elvington et al v. Phenix City Board of Education et al

Filing 81

ORDER as follows: (1) Plaintiffs objections (Doc. 80 ) are OVERRULED. (2) The Recommendation (Doc. 79 ) is ADOPTED. (3) Defendants Wilkes, Vickers, Sasser, Griffin, Jones, and Burns's motion to dismiss Counts I, II, and III (Doc. 63 ) is G RANTED. (4) Defendants Russell County Department of Human Resources, Price, and Casteel's motion to dismiss Counts I, II, and III (Doc. 65 ) is GRANTED. (5) All claims against the Russell County Department of Human Resources are DISMISSED with prejudice based on Plaintiffs' concessions. (6) The Phenix City Board of Education, Stamp, Patrick, Alexander, Baird, Donahue, Ellis, and Lawrence's motion to dismiss Counts I, II, and III (Doc. 67 ) is GRANTED. (7) Plaintiffs' federa l-law claims (Counts I, II, and III) are DISMISSED with prejudice. (8) Plaintiffs' state-law claims (Counts IV, V, VI, VII, and VIII) are DISMISSED without prejudice under 28 USC 1367. A separate final judgment will be entered. Signed by Honorable Judge William Keith Watkins on 3/11/2019. (dmn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
EASTERN DIVISION
RONNIE ELVINGTON, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
PHENIX CITY BOARD OF
EDUCATION, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 3:18-CV-120-WKW
[WO]

ORDER
On February 14, 2019, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation (Doc. #
79) that the pending motions to dismiss (Docs. # 63, 65, 67) be granted. The
Magistrate Judge further recommended dismissal without prejudice of Plaintiffs’
state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. On February 28, 2019, Plaintiffs Ronnie
and Betsy Elvington filed timely objections. (Doc. # 80.) The court has conducted
an independent and de novo review of those portions of the Recommendation to
which objection is made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). After careful review of the law
and the record, the court finds that the objections are due to be overruled and the
motions to dismiss granted.
Plaintiffs’ objections present no basis for overruling the Recommendation.
First, Plaintiffs argue that the Recommendation did not apply the correct standard of
review. Not so. The Recommendation clearly accepts all factual matter as true and

then evaluates whether Plaintiffs have stated a plausible claim based on those facts.
See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 683 (2009).
Plaintiffs’ next three objections relate to the Recommendation’s conclusion
that there was no constitutional violation here. But Plaintiffs cite no authority
contradicting the Recommendation’s well-supported legal conclusions that: (1)
government actors have no duty to protect individuals from the conduct of private
actors, (Doc. # 79, at 23) (citing DeShaney v. Winnebago Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs.,
489 U.S. 189, 195 (1989)); and (2) “‘deliberate indifference’ is insufficient to
constitute a due-process violation in a non-custodial setting,” (Doc. # 79, at 25)
(quoting Nix v. Franklin Cty. Sch. Dist., 311 F.3d 1373, 1377 (11th Cir. 2002)). And
based on these propositions, Plaintiffs’ fourth objection is due to be overruled,
because it was not well-established that Defendants had a duty to protect Plaintiff
Ronnie Elvington from the actions of private individuals. Thus, even if there were
a constitutional violation, the individual defendants would be entitled to qualified
immunity.
Plaintiffs’ final objection is that the state-law claims should not be dismissed
because the federal claims should not be dismissed. As discussed, dismissal of the
federal claims is proper, and the court also finds it appropriate to dismiss the statelaw claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Thus, Plaintiffs’ objections will be overruled
and the Recommendation adopted.
2

It is ORDERED as follows:
(1)

Plaintiffs’ objections (Doc. # 80) are OVERRULED.

(2)

The Recommendation (Doc. # 79) is ADOPTED.

(3)

Defendants Wilkes, Vickers, Sasser, Griffin, Jones, and Burns’s motion

to dismiss Counts I, II, and III (Doc. # 63) is GRANTED.
(4)

Defendants Russell County Department of Human Resources, Price,

and Casteel’s motion to dismiss Counts I, II, and III (Doc. # 65) is GRANTED.
(5)

All claims against the Russell County Department of Human Resources

are DISMISSED with prejudice based on Plaintiffs’ concessions.
(6)

The Phenix City Board of Education, Stamp, Patrick, Alexander, Baird,

Donahue, Ellis, and Lawrence’s motion to dismiss Counts I, II, and III (Doc. # 67)
is GRANTED.
(7)

Plaintiffs’ federal-law claims (Counts I, II, and III) are DISMISSED

with prejudice.
(8)

Plaintiffs’ state-law claims (Counts IV, V, VI, VII, and VIII) are

DISMISSED without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
A separate final judgment will be entered.
DONE this 11th day of March, 2019.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3