Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Greene v. Mullis

United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division

March 21, 2019

MICHAEL LEE GREENE, Plaintiff,
v.
KEVIN R. MULLIS, et al.,

          ORDER

          Robert J. Conrad, Jr., United States District Judge.

         THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint filed by Defendant Kevin R. Mullis in his Individual Capacity, (Doc. No. 38), and the Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint filed by Defendants Kevin R. Mullis in his Official Capacity and the Town of Lilesville, (Doc. No. 39), and the parties' associated briefs and exhibits; the Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”) of the U.S. Magistrate Judge, (Doc. No. 47); the parties' Objections thereto, (Doc. Nos. 49, 51, 54), and the parties' associated responsive briefs and exhibits regarding their Objections.

         I. BACKGROUND

         Neither party has objected to the Magistrate Judge's statement of the factual and procedural background of this case. Therefore, the Court adopts the facts as set forth in the M&R.

         II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         A district court may assign dispositive pretrial matters, including motions to dismiss, to a magistrate judge for “proposed findings of fact and recommendations.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B). The Federal Magistrate Act 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.” Id. at § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3); Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1983).

         III. DISCUSSION

         In this suit, Plaintiff has alleged nine causes of action, based on alleged violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and various state-law claims:

1. Unlawful prosecution of state criminal case in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983;
2. False arrest in violation of North Carolina state law
3. False arrest in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983;
4. False imprisonment in violation of North Carolina state law;
5. False imprisonment in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983;
6. Abuse of process in violation of North Carolina ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.