Ledford v. NC Dept of Public Safety et al

Filing 28

ORDER accepting 27 Memorandum and Recommendations and denying in part and granting in part Defendants' 17 Partial Motion to Dismiss. See order for further details . Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 1/25/2017. (nvc)

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:16-cv-00093-MR-DLH

CHAUNCEY JOHN LEDFORD,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
)
OF PUBLIC SAFETY, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________ )

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants’ Partial Motion to
Dismiss [Doc. 17] and the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and
Recommendation [Doc. 27] regarding the disposition of that motion.
Defendants North Carolina Department of Public Safety (“DPS”); Frank
Perry, in his official capacity as secretary of DPS and in his individual
capacity (“Perry”); Joseph Dugdale, in his official capacity as Chief Deputy
General counsel for DPS and in his individual capacity (“Dugdale”); Margaret
Murga, in her official capacity as Personnel Analyst for DPS and in her
individual capacity (“Murga”); Pamela Walker, in her official capacity as
Director of Communications Office for DPS and in her individual capacity
(“Walker”); and the North Carolina Alcohol Law Enforcement Branch of the

State Bureau of Investigation (“ALE”), moved to dismiss several of the claims
asserted in the Plaintiff’s Complaint. [Doc. 17]. 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 partial motion to dismiss and to submit a recommendation for
its disposition.
On January 3, 2017, the Magistrate Judge filed a Memorandum and
Recommendation in this case containing conclusions of law in support of a
recommendation regarding the partial motion to dismiss. [Doc. 27]. The
parties were advised that any objections to the Magistrate Judge’s
Memorandum and Recommendation were to be filed in writing within
fourteen (14) days of service. The period within which to file objections has
expired,

and

no

written

objections

to

the

Memorandum

and

Recommendation have been filed.
After a careful review of the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation, the
Court finds that the proposed conclusions of law are consistent with current
case law. Accordingly, the Court hereby accepts the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation that the partial motion to dismiss be granted in part and
denied in part.

2

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Memorandum and
Recommendation [Doc. 27] is ACCEPTED, and Defendants’ Partial Motion
to Dismiss [Doc. 17] is hereby GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART
as follows:
(1)

With respect to Plaintiff’s “First Claim,” which seeks damages

and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Plaintiff’s claims for
damages against Defendants DPS, ALE, and Defendants Perry, Dugdale,
Murga, and Walker in their official capacities are hereby DISMISSED. The
Plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief against Defendants Dugdale, Murga, and
Walker in their official capacities are DISMISSED. The Defendants’ Partial
Motion to Dismiss is DENIED to the extent it seeks to dismiss the § 1983
claims seeking injunctive relief against Defendant Perry in his official
capacity and Defendants DPS and ALE1;
(2)

With respect to Plaintiff’s “Second Claim,” which asserts claims

pursuant to the North Carolina Constitution, the Plaintiff’s claims against
Defendants Perry, Dugdale, Murga, and Walker in their individual capacities
are DISMISSED, and the Plaintiff’s claims for damages against Defendants

Defendants did not seek dismissal of the Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims for damages against
Defendants Perry, Dugdale, Murga, and Walker in their individual capacities and therefore
that portion of Plaintiff’s “First Claim” remains viable.
3
1

Perry, Dugdale, Murga, and Walker in their official capacities and
Defendants DPS and ALE are also DISMISSED2;
(3)

Plaintiff’s “Third Claim,” which states claims for defamation

against all Defendants, is DISMISSED in its entirety; and
(4)

With respect to Plaintiff’s “Fourth Claim,” which asserts claims of

civil conspiracy against all Defendants, Plaintiff’s claims for damages against
Defendants Perry, Dugdale, Murga, and Walker in their official capacities
and Defendants DPS and ALE are DISMISSED.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed: January 25, 2017

2

Defendants did not seek dismissal of the Second Claim to the extent that Plaintiff asserts
therein claims for injunctive relief under the North Carolina Constitution against
Defendants DPS and ALE and Defendants Perry, Dugdale, Murga, and Walker in their
official capacities. Accordingly, these remain viable claims.
3

Defendants did not seek dismissal of the Fourth Claim to the extent that Plaintiff asserts
therein claims of civil conspiracy against Defendants Perry, Dugdale, Murga, and Walker
in their individual capacities. Accordingly, these remain viable claims in this action.
4