Opinion
Case No. 4:10-cv-14
09-10-2012
TERRY L. FREEZE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF DECHERD, TENNESSEE, et al., Defendants.
Judge Mattice
Magistrate Judge Carter
ORDER
On August 28, 2012, Magistrate Judge William B. Carter filed his Report and Recommendation (Doc. 42) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). Magistrate Judge Carter recommended that Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 24) be denied and that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 26) be granted. Magistrate Judge Carter further recommended that Plaintiffs' claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 be dismissed with prejudice and that Plaintiffs' state law claims, raised pursuant to the Tennessee Open Meetings Act and the Tennessee Public Protection Act, be dismissed without prejudice.
Plaintiffs have filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation, as well as Plaintiffs' objections. The Court finds that Magistrate Judge Carter's Report and Recommendation fully addressed Plaintiffs' objections. The Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Carter's well-reasoned conclusions. Additionally, because the parties are not diverse and because the Court will dismiss Plaintiffs' federal claims, the Court also agrees with Magistrate Judge Carter's conclusion that Plaintiffs' state law claims should be dismissed without prejudice.
In fact, as Magistrate Judge Carter correctly noted, the Court has previously addressed the issue presented by Plaintiffs - namely, whether the City's Police Manual and Personnel Policy create a property interest in continued employment for the City's police officers - and concluded that no such property interest exists. See Madden v. City of Dechard, No. 4:10-cv-13 (E.D. Tenn., Mar. 27, 2012).
Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Carter's findings of fact and conclusions of law. Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 24) is DENIED, and Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 26) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs' federal claims are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state law claims, and those claims are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
______________________
HARRY S. MATTICE, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE