M.U.H., a minor, et al v. Lenoir Co. Public School Board, et al

Filing 24

ORDER denying 23 MOTION to Alter or Set Aside 21 Judgment and Motion to Amend Complaint - Signed by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 09/15/2015. (Baker, C.)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN DIVISION NO. 4:14-CV-195-FL ASHLEY J. HINTON; and ASHLEY J. HINTON, on behalf of M.U.H., a minor child, Plaintiffs, v. LENOIR COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOL BOARD, L. STEPHEN MAZINGO, ODIE LEAVEN, and KELLY JARMAN, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER This matter comes before the court on plaintiffs’ motions to modify the final judgment of the court and to amend plaintiffs’ complaint. The court entered a judgment of dismissal on August 31, 2015 after careful review of the magistrate judge’s memorandum and recommendation. On September 14, 2015, plaintiffs filed these motions. For the reasons that follow, the court denies plaintiffs’ motions. Plaintiffs contend that on September 8, 2015, they began the state administrative process necessary to establish federal jurisdiction, and therefore ask the court to rescind the dismissal until the administrative process has been exhausted. (DE 23). Plaintiffs must do more than begin to avail themselves of the administrative procedures in order to establish subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiffs must completely exhaust the process. E.L. ex rel. Lorsson v. Chapel Hill-Carrboro Bd. of Educ., 773 F.3d 509, 513-14 (4th Cir. 2014) (internal citations omitted). As such, any motion to amend the complaint now based upon incomplete exhaustion is futile. Therefore, for these reasons and for the reasons provided in the court’s previous order of dismissal (DE 21), plaintiffs’ motions are DENIED. SO ORDERED, this the 15th day of September, 2015. LOUISE W. FLANAGAN United States District Court 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?