Bristow et al v. Mr. Vandayburg et al

Filing 19

Memorandum Opinion and Order: This matter is before the Court upon Defendants Ross Wilber, Timothy Shook and Alan Vandayburg's Motion to Dismiss or, Alternatively, Ross Wilber's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 15 ) and the Motion to Dismiss Substituted Defendant United States of America (Doc. 17 ). This is a civil rights action. For the reasons that follow, the motion filed by Defendants Ross Wilber, Timothy Shook and Alan Vandayburg's is GRANTED in PART and DENIED i n PART. The motion filed by the United States is GRANTED. Defendants Wilber and Vandayburg point out that the complaint does not contain sufficient allegations to suggest that they were involved in the alleged wrongdoing. Plaintiff does not disput e this assertion. Having reviewed the complaint, the Court agrees. Accordingly, dismissal is warranted. Defendants' motion is GRANTED as to defendants Wilber and Vandayburg. For the reasons stated in this Court's Memorandum of Opinion an d Order dated February 3, 2011, the Court finds that the complaint states a claim against defendant Shook. Accordingly, defendants' motion is DENIED as to this defendant. The motion filed by the United States is GRANTED as plaintiff does not di spute that she failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. Thus, to the extent the complaint contains common law tort claims for false arrest and false imprisonment, those claims are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Judge Patricia A. Gaughan on 7/8/11. (LC,S)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

Sharon Bristow,
Plaintiff,
Vs.
Mr. Vandayburg, et al.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1:11 CV 186
JUDGE PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN

Memorandum of Opinion and Order

This matter is before the Court upon Defendants Ross Wilber, Timothy Shook and Alan
Vandayburg’s Motion to Dismiss or, Alternatively, Ross Wilber’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (Doc. 15) and the Motion to Dismiss Substituted Defendant United States of America
(Doc. 17). This is a civil rights action. For the reasons that follow, the motion filed by
Defendants Ross Wilber, Timothy Shook and Alan Vandayburg’s is GRANTED in PART and
DENIED in PART. The motion filed by the United States is GRANTED.
Defendants Wilber and Vandayburg point out that the complaint does not contain
sufficient allegations to suggest that they were involved in the alleged wrongdoing. Plaintiff
does not dispute this assertion. Having reviewed the complaint, the Court agrees. Accordingly,
1

dismissal is warranted. Defendants’ motion is GRANTED as to defendants Wilber and
Vandayburg.
For the reasons stated in this Court’s Memorandum of Opinion and Order dated February
3, 2011, the Court finds that the complaint states a claim against defendant Shook. Accordingly,
defendants’ motion is DENIED as to this defendant.
The motion filed by the United States is GRANTED as plaintiff does not dispute that she
failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. Thus, to the extent the complaint contains
common law tort claims for false arrest and false imprisonment, those claims are dismissed for
lack of jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Patricia A. Gaughan
PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN
United States District Judge
Dated: 7/8/11

2