Dyson et al v. Le'Chris Health System Incorporated et al

Filing 21

ORDER ADOPTING 8 MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION: Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed in part and allowed to proceed in part. Defendants Leonard Wiggins and Lorenzo Carmon are dismissed from the case. Signed by US District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 1/23/2014. Counsel is directed to read the order in its entirety for critical information about what claims have been dismissed and what claims are allowed to proceed. Copy mailed to pro se plaintiffs via US Mail. (Fisher, M.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
EASTERN DIVISION
NO. 4:13-CV-224-BO
ANNIE BATTLE DYSON and
AARON PURNELL DYSON,

)
)
)
)

Plaintiffs,
V.

)

LE'CHRIS HELATH SYSTEM
INCORPORATED, EDGECOMBE
COUNTY GOVERNMENT, LEONARD
WIGGINS, County Commissioner
Chairman, and LORENZO CARMON,
County Manager,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

Defendants.
___________________________ )

This matter is before the Court on the Memorandum and Recommendation ("M&R") of
United States Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones [DE 8]. For the following reasons, the Court
ADOPTS the M&R.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs, Annie Battle Dyson and Aaron Purnell Dyson, North Carolina residents, bring
this action against Le'Chris Health Systems Incorporated ("Le'Chris"), Edgecombe County
Government ("Edgecomb County"), Leonard Wiggins, and Lorenzo Carmon, alleging various
state and federal constitutional violations, as well as state law claims, and invoking the Court's
federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiffs seek $105,500,000 in compensatory
and punitive damages from Le'Chris and $55,000,000 in compensatory and punitive damages
from Edgecomb County, as well as injunctive relief.

Plaintiffs' complaint arises from the alleged numerous violations of their civil rights
when an adult protective services worker, Ms. Shawn Watson, with the Edgecombe County
Department of Social Services, entered the home plaintiffs shared with a family member, Ricky
W. Battle (who appears to be Annie Battle Dyson's brother), for the purpose of investigating
what appears to be a claim by Le'Chris that Battle was the victim of abuse and/or neglect by
Aaron Dyson. It appears that Battle was removed from the home by Watson to a facility operated
by Le'Chris. As a result of these events, plaintiffs allege claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for
violations of their Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights; 18 U.S.C. §
241; 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985 and 1986; 42 U.S.C. § 14141; 18 U.S.C. § 1201; the United Nations
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 12; the North Carolina Constitution, Article 1,
§§ 18-20; state law claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, malicious prosecution,
libel per se, negligence, intentional misrepresentation, false light, invasion of privacy, and false
imprisonment; and N.C., Gen. Stat.§§ 14-39 and 14-234.1
Magistrate Judge Jones reviewed plaintiffs' pro se applications to proceed in forma

pauperis and conducted a frivolity review of plaintiffs' complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a)(l), (e)(2)(B). [DE 8]. Plaintiffs have not filed an objection to the M&R.
DISCUSSION
A district court is required to review an M&R de novo if the defendant specifically
objects to it or in cases of clear error. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 14950 (1985). The district court is only required to make a de novo determination of those specific
findings to which the defendant has actually objected. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200
(4th Cir. 1983). Here, plaintiffs have not filed an objection to the Magistrate Judge's
recommendation. Therefore this Court considers whether the M&R is "clearly erroneous or

2

contrary to law." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). The Court finds no clear error in the Magistrate
Judge's decision, and therefore adopts the M&R.
The following aspects of the complaint are hereby dismissed: (1) the § 1983 claim against
Edgecombe County to the extent it is based on the search of Battle's person; (2) the§ 1983 claim
against Le'Chris, which appears to be based entirely on the alleged search of Battle's person; (3)
the false imprisonment claim, which alleges the false imprisonment of Battle; (4) Count 8 which
alleges a violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations, Article
12; (5) Count 10 which alleges a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241; (6) Count 13 which alleges
violations of 42 U.S.C §§ 1985(3) and 1986; (7) Count 16 which alleges a violation of 42 U.S.C.
§ 14141; (8) Count 17 which alleges intentional misrepresentation; (9) Count 18 which alleges
false light; (10) Count 20 which alleges a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2236; (11) Count 21 which
alleges a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1201; (12) Count 23 which alleges a violation of N.C. Gen
Stat.§ 14-39; and (13) Count 24 which alleges a violation ofN.C. Gen Stat.§ 14-234.1.
Further, defendants Leonard Wiggins and Lorenzo Carmon are dismissed from the case.
Plaintiffs' claims pursuant to the North Carolina Constitution, Article 1, §§ 18-20; state law
claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, malicious prosecution, libel per se,
negligence, and invasion of privacy; and claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, based on
allegations defendants violated plaintiffs' constitutional rights are ALLOWED TO PROCEED.

3

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's recommendations.
Plaintiffs' complaint is DISMISSED IN PART and ALLOWED TO PROCEED IN PART as
delineated above.

SO ORDERED,
this

&

day of January, 2014.

T RRENCE W. BOYLE
UNITED STATES DISTRI

4