United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division
J. Conrad, Jr., United States District Judge.
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
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
STANDARD OF REVIEW
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).
suit, Plaintiff has alleged nine causes of action, based on
alleged violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and various
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
5. False imprisonment in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983;
6. Abuse of process in violation of North Carolina ...