Watterson et al v. Burgess et al
ORDER denying as moot in part and denying in part without prejudice 88 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 4/28/16. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(clc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
DOCKET NO. 3:13-cv-00159-FDW-DCK
JEFFREY RANDOLPH WATTERSON and )
RANDOLPH ALEXANDER WATTERSON,
WOODY BURGESS, JASON GREEN, )
FRANKIE DELLINGER, JENNIFER HOYLE, )
DAVID HODKINS, BOB AUSTELL, MIKE )
ALLRED, DAVID HODKINS, CITY OF )
SELECTIVE INS. OF S.C., CHERRYVILLE )
CHERRYVILLE UTILITIES DEPT.,
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Ben
Blackburn, Selective Ins. Of S.C., Cherryville City Police Department, and Cherryville Utilities
Department (Doc. No. 88). Both Plaintiffs’ responded in opposition (Docs. Nos. 90, 91). As to
the motion to dismiss as it pertains to claims asserted by Plaintiff Jeffrey R. Watterson, that portion
of the motion to dismiss is DENIED AS MOOT because that Plaintiff and the moving parties have
resolved all claims among them as evidenced by their stipulation of dismissal (Doc. No. 114). As
to that portion of the motion to dismiss related to Plaintiff Randolph A. Watterson, the motion is
DENIED without prejudice to reassert relevant arguments at summary judgment.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 88) is
DENIED AS MOOT in part and DENIED in part without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: April 28, 2016
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?