Davis v. McCarthy et al

Filing 45

ORDER ADOPTING 38 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. The motions to dismiss filed on behalf of the City of Mobile 19 and Sergeant Melvin Jones 13 are granted in their entirety. The motion to dismiss filed on behalf of Officer Daniel McCarthy and Corporal Lorenzo Matthews 17 is granted. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Davis' stat law claims against McCarthy and Matthews. Therefore those claims are dismissed without prejudice. Mr. Davis may pursue the state law claims assesrted against McCarthy and Matthews if he chooses, in state court.. Signed by Judge Kristi K. DuBose on 10/7/2015. (copy to plaintiff) (cmj)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ISAAC DAVIS,

:

Plaintiff,

:

vs.

:

DANIEL L. MCCARTHY, et al.,

CA 15-0138-KD-C

:

Defendants.
ORDER
After due and proper consideration of the issues raised, and a de novo determination of
those portions of the recommendation to which objection is made, the recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B) and dated August 26, 2015, is
ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court.
Accordingly, the motions to dismiss filed on behalf of the City of Mobile (Doc. 19) and
Sergeant Melvin Jones (Doc. 13) ARE GRANTED IN THEIR ENTIRETY. The motion to
dismiss filed on behalf of Officer Daniel McCarthy and Corporal Lorenzo Matthews (Doc. 17) is
also GRANTED.
The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367
over Davis’ state law claims against McCarthy and Matthews. Therefore, those claims are
DISMISSED without prejudice. See, e.g., Ingram v. Sch. Bd. of Miami-Dade County, 167 Fed.
Appx. 107, 109 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (“When a court decides not to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(c)(3) because only state claims remain, the proper action
is a dismissal without prejudice so that the complaining party may pursue the claim in state

court.”) (citing Crosby v. Paulk, 187 F.3d 1339, 1352 (11th Cir. 1999) (“If he decides to dismiss
these state-law claims, then they should be dismissed without prejudice so that the claims may be
refiled in the appropriate state court.”). Mr. Davis may pursue the state law claims asserted
against McCarthy and Matthews, if he so chooses, in state court.
DONE this the 7th day of October 2015.

s/ Kristi K. DuBose
KRISTI K. DuBOSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE