Green v. Monette, et al
Filing
6
ORDER adopting 4 Memorandum and Recommendation - All federal claims are dismissed, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims, and where her attempted removal of an ongoing state criminal case fails, that case is remanded to the North Carolina General Court of Justice, Pitt County, for further proceedings. The clerk is directed to close the file. Signed by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 07/22/2014. (Baker, C.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
EASTERN DIVISION
NO. 4:14-CV-20-FL
GEORGIA ARNETTE GREEN,
Plaintiff,
v.
J.B. MONETTE, Individually;
SHERIFF NEIL ELKS, Individually;
CRAIG F. GOESS, INC., doing
business as Greenville Toyota; CRAIG
F. GOESS, SR.; CRAIG F. GOESS,
JR.; THE STATE OF NORTH
CAROLINA; PITT COUNTY;
KIMBERLY ROBB, Pitt County Elect
District Attorney; JAMES
SAUNDERS, Assistant District
Attorney; and PITT COUNTY
SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER
This court has carefully reviewed the memorandum and recommendation of the magistrate
judge on frivolity review of plaintiff's expansive allegations memorialized in complaint extending
over 350 pages, to which no objection has been made. Finding no error, the court adopts as its own,
for those reasons therein stated, the proposed conclusions of the magistrate judge. All federal claims
are dismissed, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law
claims, and where her attempted removal of an ongoing state criminal case fails, that case is
remanded to the North Carolina General Court of Justice, Pitt County, for further proceedings. The
clerk is directed to close the file.
SO ORDERED, this the 22nd day of July, 2014.
_____________________________
LOUISE W. FLANAGAN
United States District Judge
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?