Fields v. Trollinger et al
Filing
18
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 11 Motion to Dismiss; adopting Memorandum and Recommendations re 15 Memorandum and Recommendations; and parties shall conduct an Initial Attys' Conf within 14 days of this Order and file a Certificate of Initial Attys' Conf with the Court within 7 days thereafter. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 8/3/11. (nll)
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:10cv296
AMANDA L. FIELDS,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
)
IRA R. TROLLINGER, individually
)
and in his official capacity; COY W.
)
GIBSON, individually and in his
)
official capacity; SUSAN I.
)
WESTALL, individually and in her
)
official capacity; and THE
)
McDOWELL COUNTY BOARD OF
)
EDUCATION,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________ )
MEMORANDUM OF
DECISION AND ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
[Doc. 11]; the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation [Doc.
15] regarding the disposition of said motion; and the Objection to the
Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation filed by the
Defendants Ira R. Trollinger, Coy W. Gibson, and Susan I. Westall in their
individual capacities [Doc. 16].
I.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On December 20, 2010, the Plaintiff Amanda L. Fields brought this civil
action against the Defendants Ira R. Trollinger, Coy W. Gibson, and Susan I.
Westall, both individually and in their official capacities, and the McDowell
County Board of Education (“the Board”), asserting violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et
seq. (“ADA”) and the Family Medical Leave Act of 1993, as amended, 29
U.S.C. §§ 2601, et seq. (“FMLA”).
[Doc. 1].
In addition to seeking
compensatory damages and other relief, the Complaint seeks punitive
damages with respect to the Plaintiff’s claims under the ADA. [Id.].
On February 1, 2011, the Defendants moved to dismiss the Plaintiff’s
claims on various grounds. Specifically, the Defendants Trollinger, Gibson,
and Westall (collectively “the Individual Defendants”) moved pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) to dismiss the claims asserted
against them in their individual capacities on the grounds that individual
liability does not attach to public employees and supervisors under the ADA
and FMLA. Alternatively, the Individual Defendants moved pursuant to Rules
12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss the
Plaintiff’s FMLA claim against them in their individual capacities based on the
doctrine of qualified immunity. The Board moved to dismiss all of the claims
2
asserted against it pursuant to Rules 12(b)(6) for failing to state a claim for
which relief can be granted. The Board further moved to dismiss the Plaintiff’s
request for punitive damages under the ADA. [Doc. 11].
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and the Standing Orders of Designation
of this Court, the Honorable Dennis L. Howell, United States Magistrate
Judge, was designated to consider the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and to
submit a recommendation for its disposition.
On March 28, 2011, the
Magistrate Judge entered a Memorandum and Recommendation in which he
recommended that the Motion to Dismiss be granted in part and denied in
part. Specifically, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Motion to
Dismiss should be denied with respect to the claims asserted against the
Board, but that the Plaintiff’s demand for punitive damages under the ADA
should be stricken. The Magistrate Judge further recommended that the
Motion to Dismiss be granted with respect to the Plaintiff’s ADA claims against
the Individual Defendants, and that the Motion be granted with respect to the
Plaintiff’s FMLA claims against these Defendants solely on the basis of
qualified immunity. The Magistrate Judge specifically rejected the Individual
Defendants’ argument that they were entitled to dismissal of the FMLA claims
on the grounds that the FMLA does not provide for individual liability of public
employees. [Doc. 15 at 29-30].
3
The Individual Defendants now object to the Memorandum and
Recommendation. [Doc. 16].1 While not opposing dismissal of the causes of
action asserted against them, they argue that the Magistrate Judge should
have recommended dismissal of the FMLA claims on the grounds that the
FMLA does not create individual liability for public employees. [Id.]. The
Plaintiff has responded to the Defendants’ Objection, urging the Court to
adopt the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation in its entirety [Doc. 17].
Having been fully briefed, this matter is now ripe for disposition.
II.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The Defendants make no objection to the Factual Background portion
of the Memorandum and Recommendation. Upon careful review, the Court
finds that the Magistrate Judge’s recitation of the relevant facts is correct.
Accordingly, the Factual Background as set forth in the Memorandum and
Recommendation [Doc. 15 at 1-5] is accepted and incorporated herein.
III.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Federal Magistrate Act requires a district court to “make a de novo
determination of those portions of the report or specific proposed findings or
recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In
1
The Court notes that no objections were filed as to the Magistrate Judge’s
Recommendation regarding the disposition of the Plaintiff’s claims against the Board or
the Plaintiff’s ADA claims against Defendants Trollinger, Gibson, and Westall.
4
order “to preserve for appeal an issue in a magistrate judge’s report, a party
must object to the finding or recommendation on that issue with sufficient
specificity so as reasonably to alert the district court of the true ground for the
objection.” United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 622 (4th Cir. 2007). The
Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the
factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge to which no objections
have been raised. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88
L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Additionally, the Court need not conduct a de novo
review where a party makes only “general and conclusory objections that do
not direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate's proposed findings
and recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982).
IV.
DISCUSSION
In their Objection, the Individual Defendants “respectfully disagree” with
the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions regarding individual liability under the
FMLA. [Doc. 16 at 3]. In so arguing, they urge the Court to adopt the various
cases cited in the memorandum of law previously filed in support of their
motion to dismiss, which they incorporate by reference. [Id. at 3-4]. These
type of general objections do not warrant a de novo review of the Magistrate
Judge’s reasoning. “A general objection, or one that merely restates the
arguments previously presented is not sufficient to alert the court to alleged
5
errors on the part of the magistrate judge. An ‘objection’ that does nothing
more than state a disagreement with a magistrate's suggested resolution, or
simply summarizes what has been presented before, is not an ‘objection’ as
that term is used in this context.” Aldrich v. Bock, 327 F.Supp.2d 743, 747
(E.D. Mich. 2004).
After a careful review of the Memorandum and
Recommendation, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge’s proposed
conclusions of law are correct and are consistent with current case law.
Accordingly,
the
Court
hereby
accepts
the
Magistrate
Judge’s
recommendation regarding the dismissal of the Plaintiff’s FMLA claims.
V.
CONCLUSION
Having conducted a careful review of the Memorandum and
Recommendation, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge’s proposed
conclusions of law are supported by and are consistent with current case law.
Accordingly, IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Defendants’
Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation
[Doc. 16] is OVERRULED, and the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge
[Doc. 15] is ACCEPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
[Doc. 11] is ALLOWED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:
6
(1)
Defendants Susan I. Westall’s, Coy W. Gibson’s, and Ira R.
Trollinger’s Motion to Dismiss the ADA claims asserted
against them in their individual capacities is ALLOWED,
and such claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;
(2)
Defendants Susan I. Westall’s, Coy W. Gibson’s, and Ira R.
Trollinger’s Motion to Dismiss the FMLA claim against them
in their individual capacities based on qualified immunity is
GRANTED. To the extent that this motion is based on the
theory that the FMLA does not provide for individual liability
of the Defendants as public school employees, the motion
is DENIED;
(3)
Defendant McDowell County Board of Education’s Motion
to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) all claims asserted against
it is DENIED; and
(4)
Defendant McDowell County Board of Education’s Motion
to Dismiss the demand for punitive damages contained in
Plaintiff’s ADA claims is ALLOWED, and such demand for
punitive damages against this Defendant is stricken and
otherwise dismissed.
7
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall conduct an Initial
Attorneys’ Conference within fourteen (14) days of this Order and file a
Certificate of Initial Attorneys’ Conference with the Court within seven (7) days
thereafter.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: August 3, 2011
8
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?