Cox, et al v. The Sampson County Board of Education, et al
Filing
43
ORDER terminating as moot 14 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and 15 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim - This matter comes now before the court upon the clerk's report that the office is informed all issues in dispute, including plaintiffs' entitlement to relief as alleged and the disputes memorialized in defendants' motions to dismiss (DE 14, 15) for failure to state a claim, were resolved at mediation last week. The parties specifically are re ferred to Rule 17.1, Local Civil Rules. Unless good cause be shown for a further time extension, the court DIRECTS plaintiffs to tender to the court the proposed, conforming Order of Approval not later than forty-five (45) days from date of entry of this order, and any other settlement documentation deemed necessary by a party to accomplish a complete and final settlement, as negotiated. Signed by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 09/25/2013. (Baker, C.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
No. 7:12-CV-344-FL
CLARINDA COX and LIONEL SHAWN
COX, as Parents and Next Friends of J.C.,
a minor,
Plaintiffs,
v.
THE SAMPSON COUNTY BOARD OF
EDUCATION, a North Carolina body
corporate, and TERESA HOLMES, in her
individual and official capacities,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER
This matter, initiated by complaint filed December 6, 2012, wherein plaintiffs seek damages
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for an alleged deprivation of the rights of their minor son, J.C., to be free
from unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment, comes now before the court
upon the clerk’s report that the office is informed all issues in dispute, including plaintiffs’
entitlement to relief as alleged and the disputes memorialized in defendants’ motions to dismiss (DE
14, 15) for failure to state a claim, were resolved at mediation last week.
Plaintiffs allege that Teresa Holmes (“Holmes”), who was assistant principal of Union
Elementary School, where J.C. was attending school, subjected J.C. to an unjustified and excessively
intrusive strip search in her office. Plaintiffs allege that Holmes is liable for executing the
unreasonable search and that the Sampson County Board of Education (“Board”) is liable because
the search resulted from and was caused by a policy, custom, or practice of the Board and because
of its failure to train or instruct its employees, thereby causing deprivation of J.C.’s Fourth
Amendment rights. Plaintiffs also allege that defendants are liable, on the basis of the same
unjustified strip search, under the North Carolina constitution and for state law claims of battery and
invasion of privacy. These complaints defendants did contest.
While the involvement of a minor child implicates special procedures attendant with
conclusion of the matter in settlement, upon the representations made that there exists a negotiated
resolution of the case, the court directs the clerk to terminate as MOOT defendants’ motions which
also are the subject of a memorandum and recommendation (“M&R”) by a magistrate judge, now
ripe, wherein it was recommended that the motion to dismiss of defendant Sampson County Board
of Education (“Board”) be denied and the motion to dismiss of defendant Holmes be granted in part
and denied in part.
The parties specifically are referred to Rule 17.1, Local Civil Rules. Unless good cause be
shown for a further time extension, the court DIRECTS plaintiffs to tender to the court the proposed,
conforming Order of Approval not later than forty-five (45) days from date of entry of this order,
and any other settlement documentation deemed necessary by a party to accomplish a complete and
final settlement, as negotiated.
SO ORDERED this the 25th day of September, 2013.
______________________________
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?