Anderson vs. Caldwell County Sheriff's Office, et al

Filing 231

ORDER that the Plaintiff's statutory bond claim is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice. Motion 228 terminated. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 6/10/13. (nll)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:09cv423

JERRY ANDERSON,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
CALDWELL COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, )
et. al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________
_)

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Mandate of the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. [Doc. 226].
On April 24, 2013, the Fourth Circuit reversed in part, dismissed in
part and remanded this matter to the undersigned. The Circuit held:
The arresting officers are entitled to qualified immunity on the
federal claims; the derivative federal claims of supervisory and
local government liability fail because no actionable claim can
exist without a constitutional violation committed by a
subordinate employee; public officers’ and governmental
liability shield the officers and the [Caldwell County Sheriff’s
Office] from Anderson’s state law claims; and the [Fourth
Circuit] lacks jurisdiction to review the statutory bond claim
against the sureties.
Anderson v. Caldwell County Sheriff’s Office, ____ Fed. App’x. ____,
2013 WL 1749513 **9 (2013).

As a result of the Fourth Circuit’s rulings as well as prior rulings of this
Court, the only remaining claim in this action is the statutory bond claim
asserted by the Plaintiff against the sureties pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat.
§58-76-5. However, this is a state law claim and all claims over which this
Court had original jurisdiction have been dismissed. The Court therefore
declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim.1 28 U.S.C.
§1367(c)(3).
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s statutory bond
claim is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice.
The Clerk of Court is instructed to terminate this action.
Signed: June 10, 2013

1

The Court notes that the dismissal of the state law claims would necessarily result in
the dismissal of this statutory claim. Stafford v. Barker, 129 N.C. App. 576, 502 S.E.2d
1 (1998). Out of an abundance of caution and in order to avoid any further expenditure
of judicial resources, this Court does not so rule, finding instead that the exercise of
supplemental jurisdiction is declined.