Wilcox v. Lyons et al, No. 7:2017cv00530 - Document 44 (W.D. Va. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Michael F. Urbanski on 12/6/2018. (ck)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN TH E U N ITED STATES D ISTRICT CO U RT FO R T H E W ESTE RN D ISTRICT OF W RGIN IA ROAN O U D IW SIO N rlO PS OFFICE U,S.Diz' lCQiotç' AT ROANOKE,ï'A FILED DE2 i.2218 Ju DLEY BY::.t' . CO LETTE M . W ILCO X, Plaintiffy j :y ; i Case N o.7:17-cv-000530 By:M ichaelF.U tbansld N ATHAN H .LYON S,ESQ.,clp-1 = ClziefUnited StatesDisttictJudge D efendants. G M O RAN D U M O PIN IO N Thisisan em ploym entacdon adsing underbot.h federaland state law.Plainéff ColetteM.W ilcox (<%Vilcox'')ftled thisemploymentacion putsuantto42 U.S.C.j1983, alleging violationsofherdueprocessrightsunderthe Fourteenth Am enclm entto theU nited StatesConsdtudon.D efendantsm oved to dismissW ilcox'scbim s.ECF N o.35.Thecourt held a heating on D efendants'ftrstm odon to clism isson M arch 22,2018,and subsequently enteredanorderdismissingwithprejudiceW ilcox'sclsimsagainstCarrollCountyaswellas herhostileworkenvitonmentclcim agninstdefendantsNathanH.Lyons,Esq.,rtyonsll, theCommonwealth AttorneyforCarrollCounty,andPhillip C.Steele,Esq.tffsteele''l>a D eputy Com m onwealth Attorney forCatrollCounty.ECF N o.22.The cout. tdism issed withoutpzejudiceW ilcox'sclnimsofsexdiscritninadon,retaliation,anddepdvadonofliberty Wilcox v. Lyons et al Doc. 44 interest.ECF N o.22.The cotutalso gaveW ilcox leaveto am end.W ilcox's statelaw battery clnim againstSteelesurdved the ftrstm otbn to dism iss.ECF N os.32-33. W ilcox m oved forreconsideradon ofthe court'sM arch 23,2018,orderregarding her retaliaéon clnim .ECF N o.24.The cota'tentered an orderdenying W ilcox'sm oéon for 1 Dockets.Justia.com uRK reconsideratbn.ECFNo.33.W ilcoxthenflledan amendedcomplaintinwhich she(1) asserted addiéonalfacttzalm attersupporting herclnim fordeprivadon oflibertyinterest (Count11),(2)restatedherbatteryclnim (Count111),and(3)reassertedherretaliationcbim (CountI).Wilcox'samendedcomplaintdidnotprovideanynew factualmattetforthecourt to considervis-à-visthe tetaliaéon clnim .CountIwastherefore disnlissed.1d.The only rem aining clnim sin the am ended com plaintare Count11againstLyonsand CountIII agsinstSteele. Them atterpzesentlybeforethe courtisD efendants'm odon to dismissW ilcox's amendedcomplaintpursuanttoRule129$(6)oftheFederalRulesofCivilProcedlzre.ECF N o.35.W ith respectto CountII,D efendantsarguethatW ilcox failsto statea cbim because thefactsallegedarefalse.Ii.at10-11.lndeed,DefendantsstatethattheW ilcox'sallegadons astoCount11arefjustabsolutelyconttatytothefacts,factsindeedM s.Wilcoxandher attorney know to be false.''ECF N o.35,at11.Tlnisargum entisinapposite asthefacts alleged by W ilcox aretaken astrue atthem otion to disnnissstage.Ibarrav.United States, 120F.3d472,474 (4th Cir.1997).DefendantsfurtheratguethatWilcoxfailstostateaclnim forCount11becauseW ilcox inidated the aclm irlisttadve cllim sprocess* t.11the Virginia EmploymentCommissionrtVEC''),ECF No.35,at5-6,relyingonBisho v.W oodforthe proposidonthatpubliclyftleddocllmentsandstatementsmadeinajudicialpzoceecling comm enced bytheplaintiffaftershesuffezed herallegeditjurycannotretroacdvelysupport acauseofacdon fordeprivadon ofliberty.426U.S.341,348(1976).Defendantsmoveto dislnissCount111,atgaing thatSteelewasnotacdng underthecolorof1aw and state 1aw is notto beenforcedin federalcourtthrough 42U.S.C.j1983,and that,in anyevent,W ilcox failedtoadequatelypleadtheTfvoliéonalacévitf'elementreqlnit'edtostateaclnim fot batlery undetVirginialaw .ECF N o.35,at11-16. Forthereasonssetforth below,W ilcox hasfailed to allege factssuffkientto support herdeprivadon oflibertyclnim in CountII.In lightofthedisnlissalofW ilcox'slast remainingfederalclsim,thecotutdeclinestoexetcisesupplementaljutisdicdonoverCount 111,herstate-law claim forbattery,anddisnaissesthatclnim withoutprejudice.Themodon to dismissCount11and CountI11istherefoteG RAN TED . 1. Rule124$(6)oftheFederalRulesofCivilProcedureallowsforapartytomovefor dism issalwhen a complnintfailsto state aclnim forwllich reliefcan begranted.To suw ivea Rule129$(6)modonto disrniss,acomplaintmustcontninsufficientfffactstostateaclnim toreiefthatisplausibleon itsface.''BellAtl.Co .v.Twombl,550U.S.544,570(2007). A plninéffestablishestffacialplausibilitf'bypleaclingTffacttzalcontentthatallowsthecotzrt to draw thereasonable inferencethatthedefendantisliable forthe misconductalleged.'' Ashcroftv.I bal,556U.S.662,678 (2009).Thecomplnint'sTçgfjactazalallegationsmustbe enough to raise arightto reliefabove the speculadve level.''Twom bly,550 U.S.at555.In rulingona129$(6)motion,thecourtmustacceptallwell-pleadedallegadonsinthe complaintastrueand draw allzeasonablefactualinferencesin thelkhtmostfavorableto the plainéfilIbarrav.United States,120 F.3d at474.H ow ever,acouttdoesnotneed to accept either fflegalconclusionsdrawn from facts''orffunwarranted inferences,unteasonable conclusions,orarguments.''E.ShoreM kts.,Inc.v.J.D.Assocs.Ltd.P'sllip,213F.3d 175, 180 (4th Cir.2000).Further,ffgtjhteadbarerecitalsoftheelementsofacauseofacdon, 3 supported by m ere conclusory statem ents,do notsufhce.''Lt)b. g1,556U.S.at678.Onlyafter . aclnim isstated adequately m ay itthen (Tbe supported by showing any setoffactsconsistent with theallegaéonsin thecom plaint.''Twom bl ,550 U .S.at546. II. The Fourteenth Am endm entptotectsthe ffrightto procedutaldue processw hen governm entalaction thteatensa petson'slibertyinterestin histeputaéon and choice of occupaéon.''ltidpathv.Bd.ofGovernorsM arshallUniv.,447F.3d292,307(4t.hCir.2006). The Foutth Citcuithasdetetm ined thatto statea clmim fotdeprivadon ofalibertyintetestin one'sreputation otchoiceofoccupation plztsuantto42U.S.C.j1983,aplnintiffmustallege (1)thatthechatgesmadeagainstherimposed on herasdgmathatpreventedherfrom engaginginotheremployment,(2)thatthechargeswezemadepublicbyheremployer,(3) thatthechargesweremadein conjuncdon with atet-minaéon orsignificantdemodon,and (4)thatthechargeswerefalse.ltonev.Universi ofMd.Med.S s.Co .,855F.2d 167, 173n.5(4thCir.1988)(citingBoardofRe entsofStateColls.V.Roth,408U.S.564,57375(1972)9seeBisho v.W ood,426U.S.341,348-49(1976).1 A. ' 1 . W ilcoxhasno cogmza blepropertyinterestin herposidon attlleCarrollCountyCom m onwealthA ttom ey:)sO ffce because she wasan at-willemployee.H owever,a publicem ployerclnnotdeprive atzemployee ofherfffreedom to take advantageofotheremploymentopporrutlidesa''Sciolinov.Ci ofNe ortNews,480F.3d642,646(4thCit.2007). Wilcox'scbim thusazisesfrom thecombinadonoftwoclistinctrkhtsprotectedbytheFourteenthAmendment:(1)the liberty '''to engagein any ofthe com m on occupaéons of1ife,''Bd.ofRe entsofState Colle esv.Roth,408U .S.564, 572(1972)(quotingMeyerv.Nebraska,262U.S.390,399(1923))9and(2)thedghttodueprocess''lwjhezeaperson's good nam e,reputadon,honor,orintegrity isatstake because ofwhattlze governm entisdoing to h1 'm .''W isconsin v. Constandneau,400U.S.433,437(1971)9seealsoPaulv.Davis,424U.S.693,701(1976)(expbiningthataninclividual's liberty interestin llisreputadon isonly sufscient'to itw oke thepzoceduralprotecdon oftheD ueProcessClause''if combinedwith''somemoretangibleinterestgsuchasemployment'l.''Ld.aTostateacbim fortlzistypeoflibeztyinterest then,theplainéffm ustprove the fourelementslaid outin Sciolino v.City ofN ewpol 'tN ews.Va.,480 F.3d 642,646 (4thCir.2007). W ith respectto the fttstelem ent,W ilcox allegesthatherwrongfultet-minaéon resulted in a ségm aézed and severely dim inished professionalreputadon within Carroll Countyand thtoughoutSouthwestVirginia.SeeCompl.,ECF No.34,at11!J74-81,111-12. W ilcox clnim sthatLyonspem etuated thisstigm arelated to herwork perform ance by petidoning the CircuitCourtofCarrollCounty to overturn an awatd ofunem ploym ent benefhsawalded to W ilcox from the'VEC.In flzrtheranceofthispeddon,W ilcox alleges thatLyonsflled dam agingpleadingsand m ade dam aging statem entsthtough counselin open courtduringoralargumenton March 29,2017,beforeCitcuitCourtludgeDavidA. M elesco.Id.at!! 75-81,112.M orespecifkally,Wilcoxclnimstheaforemendoned documentsand statementssu% estthatW ilcox:(1)engageditlmisconductatherplaceof employmentasdefinedbyVirginiaCodej60.2-618,(2)engagedinwillfulinsubordinadon andtlmtsaidherinsubozdinaéonwastosuchahighdegree,thatasingleincidentjusdhed hettetnaination,(3)failedtofollow anattendahcepolicy,and(4)actedunreasonably regarding herduéesasa prosecutor.Id. W ith respectto the second and tlnitd elem ents,W ilcox clqim sthatLyonsm ade statem entsffthrough counsel''in open couttpetidoning the CircuitCoul'tofCarrollCounty to ovetturn an aw ard ofunem ploym entbenefksW ilcox received becauseofherternlinaéon. J-d.aat! 76.W ilcox notesthatLyons'peddoninvolved lengthybrieo gsbypardes,oral argum ents,and public fllingsdirectlyrelated to hezterm inadon,and thatthe fTstigm atizing pleadingsrem ain atthe Clerk'sO ffice ofCatrollCounty forpublicinspecdveby anyone.'' Ld.aat!!(76-78.W ilcox aversthatthestatementsutteredbycounselforLyonsweremadein a forum frequented by W ilcox'speersand prospecéveem ployersand thattheVizginia Suprem e Court'sonline caseinform adon websiteindicatesthe nam esofportiesitw olved and theexistenceofpleadings.Id.at!! 80-81.Wilcox furtherallegesthathertet-minadonwas w ellknown within thesm allcom m unity ofCarrollCounty and thatprospecéveem ployers haverequested w hether she hasbeen te- inated,req'niting herto describethe circumstances.Id.at!!107-8.Finally,sheallegesthatthissdgmarestlltedditectlyfrom statementsmadeafterandin conjuncéonwith herterminadon.Id.atjl!75-81,112 W ith respectto the foutth and finalelem ent,W ilcox allegesthe falsity ofthe statementsmadein connecéon wit.h hetternainaéon.Id.at!! 72,75,105-06,109.Wilcox clqim sthatLyons'accusaéon ofinsubordination w aspre-texm al,thatshe only exhibited excellentwork perform ance throughoutherem ploym ent,and thatshe wasalways professionaland courteousdespite the allegedly hostllework environm ent,hatassm ent,and sexualcliscriminadon sheenduzed.Id.at!! 72,98,116.W ilcoxclnimsthatsheremnined Tfprofessionalandcotdial''llothwhenLyons(1)accusedherofvioladngstatepolicyby takingtoomuchleaveandwhenhesubsequently(2)requestedthatshesignawdtten repzim and docum enting tbisviolaéon.Idaat!!J61-67.W henshesoughtclatif kationby . requesting a copy oftherelevantpolicy to wllich Lyonshad referred,W ilcox clnim sthat Lyonssuddenly turned lnisback,taised lnisvoice,and ternainated herforTdinsuborclinaéon.'' Ldaat!! 66-68.Wilcox clnimsto havebeen perfot-mingherwork sadsfactorilyatthetimeof herterrnination bym eetingorexceedingLyons'legitim atebusinessexpectadons.Id.at$1J 97,115-16.Finally,W ilcox contendsthatthefalse accusadonsleveled byLyonsTfhgvem ade itdifikult,ifnotim possible''to gain em ploym entin CarrollCounty orin surrounding coundes.Id.at! 11. 6 B. Forreasonssetforth below,the courtfindsthatW ilcox hasnotadequatelypled the flrstelem ent,i.e.,whetherherterm ination im posed on hera sdgm a precluHing herftom engaginginothezwork.Thecourtwithholdsjudgmentsastotheremniningelements.In orderto im plicate aprotected libettyinterest,the sdgm aW ilcox allegesattached to het professionalreputadon <Tm ustatleastTim ply the existence ofseriouscharacterdefectssuch asclishonestyorimmotaliy 'V atrnightseriouslydamagegher)stancling and associadonsin gherjcommunitf orfforecloseljgher)freedom totakeadvantageofotheremployment opport-urliées.'''Ze v.Rehrmann,79F.3d381,387(4thCir.1996)(quotingRobertsonv. Ro ers,679F.2d 1090,1092 (4th Cir.1982)and Bd.ofRe entsv.Roth,408U.S.564,573 (1972)).ln assessinglibettyinterestclnims,theFourth Citcuithasdistinguished between statem entsthatimply such seriouscharacterdefectsfrom thosethatm erely im ply ffincom petence,''the form etbeing àcdonable,thelatternot.Rid ath v.Bd.ofGovernors MarshallUnin,447F.3d292,308(4thCir.2006)9com areBostonv.W ebb,783F.2d1163, 1165-66(4thCir.1986)(recognizingthatplaindfi'slibettyinterestTfwassurelyimplicated'' by public announcem entthathewasclischarged afterfniling to disprove allegation of receivingbribe),Coxv.N.Va.Trans .Comm'n,551F.2d 555,557-58(4th Ciz.1976) (affirming trialcourt'sdete= inadon thatplninéfpslibertyinterestwasinfringedwhen em ployerpublicly linked herdischazgeto investigadon offmancialitregalatides,thus fTinsinuatingdishonestf),andMcNeillv.Butz,480 F.2d 314,319-20 (4th Cir.1973) (concluding thatfederalemployees'libertyinterestswereimplicatedby governmentem ployer'schargesofAgziculture D epartm entregtzladon violaéonsthattfsm ack of deliberatefraud''andfTineffectallegedishonestf),wit. hZe v.Rehrmarm,79F.3d381, 388(4thCir.1996)(rejecdngdeprivadonoflibertyinterestclnim whereemployerannounced thatplaindffwasbeing forced to retire ffdue to m anagem entproblem s'?- an accusadon,at most,ffofincompetenceorunsaésfactoryjobperformance7),andRobtrtson,679F.2dat 1091-92(concluciingthatlibertyinterestwasnotimplicatedbynontenewalofemployment conttactfor<Tincom petence and outside activiées,''because such allegaéonsclid notinvolve attackon plaindff'sintegrityorhonor). H ere,W ilcox allegesthatLyonsm adepublic the following false,ségm adzing charges: (1)W ilcoxengagedin rnisconductatherplaceofemploymentasdefined byVitginiaCodej 60.2-618,(2)WilcoxengagedinwiIIfUIitlsubordinaéonandthatsaidherinsubordination wastosuchahighdegree,thatasingleincideqtjustihedhertettninadon,(3)Wilcoxfailedto follow an attendancepolicy,and (4)Wilcoxacted unreasonablyregarding herdudesasa prosecutor.JA at!!I78,105,109.Thecouttfindsthatsuchcharges,whileunfavorableto W ilcox,am ountto no m otethan thatwhich theFourth Circuitand m any othercourtshave deem ed insufficientto im ply ffsetiouscharacterdefects''and have held arenotofasufûcient m agnittzde to ziseto theleveloflibertydeprivaéon.The chatge ofTfinsuborclination,''for example,isnotsufficientlységmatizingtoestablishadijrivadonofliberty.Seeltid ath,447 F.3dat308-099Dunnv.Town ofEmerald Isle,1990W L 180977,at*4 (4th Cir.Nov.26, 1990)(holdingthatclqimsthatplaintifffailedto perform required duties,demonstmted a lack ofcooperadon and discourteoustreatm enttow ardsothers,and displayed an insuborclinateattim de do notallege seriouschazacterdefectsand therefore asinsuffkientto stateaclnim asamatteroflaw).In Harm on v.O pmberland CountyBoard ofEducadon,for 8 example,theplqindff,anniddle schoolspecialeducadon teacher,argued thata decision not torenew heremployment,basedon fffabricatçdcomplaintsregatdinghercharacterandjob petformance,''fTblemishged)herzeputadonand fozeclosedhercurrentabilityto :nd work as ateacher.'?186F.Supp.3d 500,508(E.D.N.C.),affd,669F.App'x 174(4th Cir.2016).The aEegedly fabricated com plnintswerem em orialized in aletterrecom m ending non-renewal, and included allegationsofthe plaindff'sffinability to m aint/in effecdve classroom m anagem entofsttzdents''and <fpersonalbehaviorthatw asinsuborclinateand contempmous.''Ldaat504.TheHarmon courtconcluded thatthesegarden-vatietycharges ofTTunsatisfactoryjob perfo= ance''and fv subordinadon''do notimplyf<seriouscharacter defects.'?Id.at508. Futthermore,in Sticltle v.Sutherl,theplaintiffbroughtaj1983depdvadonof liberty action alleging thathisreputadon wastarnished and hisabilityto seek em ploym ent wasim paired following histetminaéon from theStrasburgPolice D epar% ent.2009W L 1806657,at*6(W.D.Va.lune24,2009).TheplaindffwasterminatedKffortakinggnfacdon which gwould)impairtheefikiencyorreputation ofthedepartment,itsmembers,or employees'and fgjnsubozdination orsedousbreach ofdiscipline.'''Id.at*6.TheSdclcley cotzrtheldthattheseffchargesrelatedtoSdckley'sjobperfo= ance...(andjdonot im plicate alibertyinterestbecauseon theitown they do notim ply thatSéckley hasa serious character defectlike dishonesty orim m oralitp''1daThe clnim thatW ilcox Tfacted unreasonablyregatdingherjob dudesasaprosecutor':issimilatlyinsufficienttoimplicate theFourteenth Am endm ent.See e. .,Ludwi v.Bd.ofTrusteesofFerrisStateU nin ,123 F.3d404,410(6thCit.1997)Solclingemployeenotdeprivedofalibertyinterestwhen 9 em ployerstated only thatthe em ployeewasterm inated because ofdfim properorinadequate performance,incompetence,neglectofduty....'');Gre o v.Hunt,24F.3d781,783(6th Cir.1994)(findingno deprivaéon oflibertywhereemployeetetvninated forffinadequate work perfozmance...faillurejto follow clearinsttnlctions...(and)fozviolating deplrtmentalpoliciesandpzocedures');Etterv.S encer,548F.Supp.2d248,250(W.D. ' Va.2008)Soldingthatffgajllegadonsofincompetenceorunsaésfactoryjobperformanceate notsufficiently ségm atizing to establish adeprivatbn ofaliberty interest''and ffgmlismanagementoffundsisliltewisenotaseriouscharactetdefectwhosepublicaéon wouldseriouslydamageanemployee'sreputadon''(ciéngRussillov.Scarborou h,935F.2d 1167,1172(10+ Cir.1991))9Gaskinv.Vill.ofPachuta,484F.Supp.2d551,556(S.D.Miss. 2007)Solclingthatstatementsthatanemployeehasbeen fftetvninatedforhisorher inadequatejobperfozmance,suggestamerefsituaéonaldifiklaltyratherthan abadgeof infamy,publicscorn,orthelike,andhencedo notgiveriseto alibeztyinterest(citadonsand quotationsonaittedl). The courtfindsthatthe chargesleveled againstW ilcox and allegedly disclosed by Lyons,because they are closely analogousto thosein H ntm on,Sticldey,Robertson,and Zepg,andafarcryfrom thosein> ,W ebb,andCox,donotpresentacognizableclnim forrelief.zlndeed,those chargesW ilcox allegesLyonsffm adepublic''relate to insubordinaéon,attendance,and incom petence,allofwhich,asin Sdckle ,in tllrn relate 2W ilcox V egesthatone ofthestigm atizing chargesleveled againstherin connecdon w1:1:the CarrollCounty Circuit CourtproceedingwasffmisconductathezplaceofemploymentasdeG edbyVizginiaCodej60.2-618.''Whilethis statute coversan array ofntisconduct,W ilcox herselfindicatesthatffmisconduct''speciically referred to non-acdonable chargesofabsenteeism and/orinsubordinadon.W ' llcoxhasnotpled factssufhcienttosuppoztanyotherimplicadon. Indeed,according to tlzeam ended com plaint,the incidentthatgave zise to the charge ofinsubozclinadon related exclusively to Lyons'reprim and ofW ilcox foraflalleged violadon ofa policy regarding leave accrual.ECF N o.34,at71O;seealso ECF N o.37,at2-3.Ifthereisreasontobelievethatthatthechargeofffm isconduct''connotedatl 'g othertlzan thosefactswhich W ilcox herselfhasspecifcallypled,shehasfafledto plead asm uch. 10 prùm tilytoherTjobperformancey'?andthereforedonot,asamatteroflaw,risetothelevel ofliberty deprivadon.Indeed,the chargesagainstW ilcox do not,asin Ri ath,W ebb,or Cox,insinuate specific chargesofm oralturpitude,ctim inalacdvity,or seriouscharacter defectssuch asdishonestyorimm orality,nordoesW ilcox ffallegeg thesechargescarrysuch aconnotadon.''Sdckle ,2009 W . L 1806657,at*6.Id.Though W ilcox'sterminaéon ffm ight make (her)somewhatlessattractiveto someotheremployerslyj''themerefactthatshewas discharged Tfwotlld hazdly establish the kind offoreclosute ofopportazniéesam ounting to a deprivadon oftbertf''undertheFourteenthAmendment.Roth,408U.S.at574n.13.ln sum ,W ilcox hasnotadequately pled a crucialelem entrequired to statea cllim for deprivation oflibertyptusuantto 42U.S.C.j1983,andaccordingly,themoéon to dismiss Count11isGRAN TE D .3 111. W ilcox'srem aining clsim ,Count111,isin federalcout'tonly undetthe doctdne of pendentjutisdicéonandhenceispropetlydisnaissedonjutisdicéonalgroundsattlzisearly pretrialstageoftheproceedings.28U.S.C.j1367(c)(3);seeCatne 'e-MellonUniv.v.Cohill, 484U.S.343,350n.7(1988)9UnitedMineW orkersofAm.v.Gibbs,383U.S.715,726 3In Bisho v.W ood,theSuprem eCourtrem indedlowercouzts: ff' l' he federalcourtisnottheappropliate fornm in which to review them uldtudeof personneldecisionstlzatarem ade dailyby public agencies.W em ustaccept theharsh factthatnlpm erousinclividualmistakesareinevitableitzthe'day-to-day adm inl 'stzadon ofotu affairs.'FheU nited StatesConsdtudon cnnnotfeasiblybe constnledtorequirefederaljudicialreview foreverysucherror.Intheabsenceof any clqim thatthepublic em ployerwasm odvated by a desireto cut'tailorto penalizetheexerciseofanemployee' sconsdmdonallyprotectedzkhts,wemust presllme thatofhcialacdon wasregularand,iferroneous,can bestbe cortected in otherways.The DueProcess Clauseofthe Fouzteenth Am endm entisnota guaranteeagainstincorrectorill-advised persorm eldecisions.'' 426U.S.341,349-50(U.S.1976). 11 (1966)9ESAB G .lnc.v.ZtMchIns.PLC,685F.3d376,394(4t.hCir.2012);Shana hanv. Cahill,58F.3d106,110(4thCir.1995). IV . Fortheforegoingreasons,thecourtDISM ISSESwithprejudiceDefendants' motiontodismissCount11andDISM ISSESwithoutptejudiceCountIIIofW ilcox's FitstAm ended Com plaint. An apptopriate orderG IIbe entered. Entered: /J - JY .--2/ /J M ichaelF.Utbansld ClziefUnitedStatesDistrictludge 12
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
