LEFANDE v. MISCHE-HOEGES

Filing 34

ORDER: The Court hereby ORDERS that Defendant's # 5 motion to dismiss is GRANTED with respect to all of Plaintiff's federal Constitutional claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for failure to state a claim upon which relief ca n be granted because Plaintiff has not alleged any facts in his complaint that plausibly suggest that Defendant was acting under color of state law, i.e., performing her official duties, at the time that she engaged in any of the actions about which Plaintiff complains. The Court further ORDERS that the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state-law claims, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), because the Court has dismissed all of Plaintif f's federal claims. Furthermore, the Court finds that, although this case has been pending before this Court for some time, having balanced all of the relevant factors, including, but not limited to, comity and judicial economy, the Court DISMISSES without prejudice Plaintiff's state-law claims. Signed by Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr. on 10/20/2016. (Scullin, Frederick)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
_____________________________________________
MATTHEW AUGUST LEFANDE,
Plaintiff,
v.

1:10-CV-1857
(FJS)

CAROLYN ANNE MISCHE-HOEGES,
Defendant.
_____________________________________________
APPEARANCES

OF COUNSEL

OFFICE OF HORACE L. BRADSHAW, JR.
1644 Sixth Street, NW, Suite 1
Washington, D.C. 20001
Attorneys for Plaintiff

HORACE L. BRADSHAW, JR., ESQ.

MATTHEW AUGUST LEFANDE
ATTORNEY AT LAW PLLC
4585 North 25th Road
Arlington, Virginia 22207
Attorneys for Plaintiff

MATTHEW AUGUST LEFANDE, ESQ.

DIMURO GINSBERG, PC
1101 King Street, Suite 610
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
Attorneys for Defendant

JONATHAN R. MOOK, ESQ.
STEPHEN LYBROOK NEAL, JR., ESQ.

SCULLIN, Senior Judge
ORDER
At a hearing on October 20, 2011, at which the Court heard oral argument in support of and
in opposition to Defendant's motion to dismiss, the Court dismissed all of Plaintiff's federal
Constitutional claims, which he brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court reserved decision
as to whether it would exercise its supplemental jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, over

Plaintiff's state-law claims. The following constitutes the Court's decision regarding Defendant's
motion to dismiss.
Accordingly, the Court hereby
ORDERS that Defendant's motion to dismiss, see Dkt. No. 5, is GRANTED with respect to
all of Plaintiff's federal Constitutional claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted because Plaintiff has not alleged any facts in his
complaint that plausibly suggest that Defendant was acting under color of state law, i.e., performing
her official duties, at the time that she engaged in any of the actions about which Plaintiff
complains; and the Court further
ORDERS that the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's
remaining state-law claims, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), because the Court has dismissed all
of Plaintiff's federal claims. Furthermore, the Court finds that, although this case has been pending
before this Court for some time, having balanced all of the relevant factors, including, but not
limited to, comity and judicial economy, the Court DISMISSES without prejudice Plaintiff's statelaw claims.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 20, 2016
Syracuse, New York

-2-