Baldwin v. Duke Energy Corporation

Filing 32

ORDER granting in part as to plaintiff's 4th claim for relief and denying in part as to ADA claim re: 16 Motion to Dismiss ; affirming 26 Memorandum and Recommendations; denying 27 Motion to Amend/Correct. Signed by District Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr on 8/17/12. (bsw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:12cv212
ERNIE BALDWIN,
Plaintiff,
Vs.
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION; and
DUKE ENERGY SERVICES,
Defendants.
_______________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the court on review of a Memorandum and
Recommendation issued in this matter. In the Memorandum and Recommendation, the
magistrate judge advised the parties of the right to file objections within 14 days, all in
accordance with 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1)(c). Objections have been filed
plaintiff within the time allowed and defendants have filed a timely response.
The Federal Magistrates Act of 1979, as amended, provides that “a district court shall
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); Camby v. Davis,
718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir.1983). However, “when objections to strictly legal issues are
raised and no factual issues are challenged, de novo review of the record may be dispensed
with.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir.1982). Similarly, de novo review is not
required by the statute “when a party makes general or conclusory objections that do not
direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate judge’s proposed findings and
recommendations.” Id. Moreover, the statute does not on its face require any review at all
of issues that are not the subject of an objection. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985);

-1-

Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d at 200. Nonetheless, a district judge is responsible for the final
determination and outcome of the case, and accordingly the court has conducted a careful
review of the magistrate judge’s recommendation.
Plaintiff objects to the recommendation that his fifth cause of action for punitive
damages and equitable relief be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. Such
objection is without merit as the law is well settled as to both federal claims and state-law
claims that a “claim” for damages is not a freestanding cause of action. North Carolina does
not recognize a "cause of action" for punitive damages. Instead, punitive damages and
equitable relief may be sought in an ad damnum clause or, as the magistrate judge found, a
prayer for relief for damages for some other tort that would support punitive damages. As a
general rule, "[p]unitive damages do not and cannot exist as an independent cause of action,
but are mere incidents of the cause of action and can never constitute a basis for it. If the
injured party has no cause of action independent of a supposed right to recover punitive
damages, then he has no cause of action at all." J. Stein, Damages and Recovery § 195 at
389 (1972). North Carolina follows this general rule of law. Hawkins v. Hawkins, 101
N.C.App. 529, 532 (1991). In North Carolina,
punitive damages may be awarded only if a claimant proves that the defendant
is liable for compensatory damages and that the defendant is guilty of fraud,
malice, or willful or wonton conduct.
Combs & Associates, Inc. v. Kennedy, 147 N.C.App. 362, 374 (2001) (citation omitted).
Further, it appears that
Punitive damages may be awarded against a person only if that person
participated in the conduct constituting the aggravating factor giving rise to the
punitive damages, or if, in the case of a corporation, the officers, directors, and
managers of the corporation participated in or condoned the conduct
constituting the aggravating factor giving rise to punitive damages.

-2-

Phillips v. Restaurant Management of Carolina, L.P., 146 N.C.App. 203, 215- 16 (2001)
(citation omitted). In North Carolina, the aggravating factors that will justify imposition of
punitive damages are set forth by statute: "(1) fraud, (2) malice, or (3) willful or wanton
conduct." N.C. Gen.Stat. § 1D-15(a). Finding that plaintiff cannot assert punitive damages
as an independent cause of action, the court will adopt the recommendation of the magistrate
judge and dismiss the fifth cause of action. Such allegations will, however, be considered
as part of the prayer for relief or ad damnum clause as if fully set out therein. Thus,
plaintiff’s pending Motion to Amend will be denied as moot.
After such careful review, the court determines that recommendation of the magistrate
judge is fully consistent with and supported by current law. Further, the factual background
and recitation of issues is supported by the applicable pleadings. Based on such
determinations, the court will fully affirm the Memorandum and Recommendation and grant
relief in accordance therewith.
ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Memorandum and Recommendation
(#26) is AFFIRMED, plaintiff’s Objection (#29) is OVERRULED, plaintiff’s Motion to
Amend (#27) is DENIED, and defendant Motion to Dismiss (#16) is GRANTED in part
and DENIED in part as follows:
(1)

defendant’s Motion to Dismiss plaintiff’s ADA claim is DENIED; and

(2)

defendant’s Motion to Dismiss plaintiff’s Fifth Claim for Relief is
GRANTED, and the allegations contained in such request for relief are
incorporated by reference into plaintiff’s prayer for relief or ad damnum clause
without further amendment.

-3-

Signed: August 17, 2012

-4-