From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Curtis v. Close

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION
Mar 8, 2016
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-cv-24624 (S.D.W. Va. Mar. 8, 2016)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-cv-24624

03-08-2016

MICHAEL CURTIS, Plaintiff, v. OFFICER JUSTIN CLOSE, et al., Defendants.


MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for submission to this court of proposed findings of fact and recommendation for disposition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). On February 11, 2016, Judge Tinsley submitted his Proposed Findings of Fact and Recommendation [ECF No. 21] (PF&R"), recommending as follows:

• "[I]t is respectfully RECOMMENDED that the presiding District Judge DENY AS MOOT the plaintiff's Motions for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction [ECF Nos. 4-2, 4-3, and 7-2]." PF&R 4.

• "[T]he undersigned proposes that the presiding District Judge FIND that all of the defendants are immune from liability from monetary damages in their official capacities under the Eleventh Amendment and, in their official capacities, are not persons who can be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Accordingly, such claims must be dismissed." Id. at 7.

• "[I]t is respectfully RECOMMENDED that the presiding District Judge GRANT the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Official Capacity Claims [ECF No. 19], filed by defendants Close, Brag[,] and Leazure . . . ." Id.

• "It is further respectfully RECOMMENDED that the presiding District Judge leave this matter referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for additional proceedings concerning the plaintiff's claims against all of the defendants in their individual capacities." Id.

No party filed objections to Judge Tinsley's PF&R. Accordingly, the court ADOPTS and INCORPORATES Judge Tinsley's PF&R. The court DENIES AS MOOT the plaintiff's requests for preliminary injunctive relief [ECF Nos. 4 and 7] and the claims for declaratory and injunctive relief made in his Complaint [ECF No. 2]. The court GRANTS the defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Official Capacity Claims [ECF No. 19] and DISMISSES the plaintiff's official capacity claims. The court ORDERS this action to remain REFERRED to Judge Tinsley for further proceedings.

The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a certified copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to Judge Tinsley, counsel of record, and any unrepresented party.

ENTER: March 8, 2016

/s/_________

JOSEPH R. GOODWIN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Curtis v. Close

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION
Mar 8, 2016
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-cv-24624 (S.D.W. Va. Mar. 8, 2016)
Case details for

Curtis v. Close

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL CURTIS, Plaintiff, v. OFFICER JUSTIN CLOSE, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION

Date published: Mar 8, 2016

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-cv-24624 (S.D.W. Va. Mar. 8, 2016)

Citing Cases

Shamblen v. Fragale

See Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 344-45 (1979). Nor is there any specific exception to this immunity for…