PINNIX v. DURHAM COUNTY GOVERNMENT

Filing 27

ORDER signed by CHIEF JUDGE WILLIAM L. OSTEEN JR. on 01/08/2013, that the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation (Doc. 17 ) is ADOPTED. FURTHER that the motion to dismiss (Doc. 13 ) filed by Defendants Durham County Government, Joyc e Logan, Robie McLamb, Kimberly Simpson, Elaine Hyman, and Chaela Garland-Downey is GRANTED IN PART, that all claims against the individual Defendants are DISMISSED pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), and that the motion to dismiss as to Defendant Durham County Government is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to refiling. FURTHER that all claims against Defendant Jim Ullman are DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). (Taylor, Abby)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

SEAN E. PINNIX,
Plaintiff,
v.
DURHAM COUNTY GOVERNMENT,
JOYCE LOGAN, ROBIE MCLAMB,
KIMBERLY SIMPSON, ELAINE
HYMAN, JIM ULLMAN, and
CHAELA GARLAND-DOWNEY,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:11CV668

ORDER
This matter is before this court for review of the Order
and Recommendation (“Recommendation”) filed on September 28,
2012, by the Magistrate Judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b).

(Doc. 17.)

In the Recommendation, the Magistrate

Judge recommends that the motion to dismiss (Doc. 13) filed by
Defendants Durham County Government, Joyce Logan, Robie McLamb,
Kimberly Simpson, Elaine Hyman, and Chaela Garland-Downey be
granted in part, that all claims against the individual
defendants should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), and
that the motion to dismiss as to Defendant Durham County
Government should be denied without prejudice to refiling.
Magistrate Judge also recommends that all claims against
Defendant Jim Ullman be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

The

§ 1915(e)(2)(B).

The Recommendation was served on the parties

to this action on September 28, 2012.

Counsel for Defendant

Durham County Government filed timely objections (Doc. 19) to
the Recommendation, and pro se Plaintiff responded to Defendant
Durham County Government’s objections (Doc. 22).
This court is required to “make a de novo determination of
those portions of the [Magistrate Judge’s] report or specified
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is
made.”

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

This court “may accept, reject,

or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations
made by the [M]agistrate [J]udge . . . or recommit the matter to
the [M]agistrate [J]udge with instructions.”

28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1).
This court has appropriately reviewed the portions of the
Recommendation to which objection was made and has made a de
novo determination which is in accord with the Magistrate
Judge’s Recommendation.1

This court therefore adopts the

Recommendation.

1

The court notes Defendant Durham County Government’s
objection to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that its
motion to dismiss be terminated as moot, without prejudice to
refiling after proper service. After being properly served (Doc.
21), Defendant Durham County Government filed a Second Motion to
Dismiss (Doc. 23), which the court will consider on the merits.
This objection, therefore, is now moot.
- 2 -

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s
Recommendation (Doc. 17) is ADOPTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that

the motion to dismiss (Doc. 13) filed by Defendants Durham
County Government, Joyce Logan, Robie McLamb, Kimberly Simpson,
Elaine Hyman, and Chaela Garland-Downey is GRANTED IN PART, that
all claims against the individual Defendants are DISMISSED
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), and that the motion to dismiss as to
Defendant Durham County Government is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
to refiling.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all claims against

Defendant Jim Ullman are DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B).
This the 8th day of January, 2013.

________________________________________
United States District Judge

- 3 -