Young v. Bailey
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.30(f) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA No. COA18-664 Filed: 5 February 2019 Mecklenburg County, No. 13 CVS 9560 TERRI YOUNG, Plaintiff, v. DANIEL BAILEY, in his Official Capacity as Sheriff of Mecklenburg County, and OHIO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants. Appeal by plaintiff Terri Young from order entered 16 February 2018 by Judge Lisa C. Bell in Superior Court, Mecklenburg County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 16 January 2019. Kennedy, Kennedy, Kennedy and Kennedy, LLP, by Harvey L. Kennedy and Harold L. Kennedy, III, for plaintiff-appellant. Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, by Sean F. Perrin, for defendants-appellees. STROUD, Judge. The background of this case can be found in this Court’s prior opinion of Young v. Bailey, 240 N.C. App. 595, 771 S.E.2d 628, (2015), aff’d, 368 N.C. 665, 781 S.E.2d 277 (2016). The prior appeal was filed in this same case and addressed the same claims and issues. See id. at 596, 771 S.E.2d at 629. Plaintiff Terri Young was a YOUNG V. BAILEY Opinion of the Court deputy sheriff in the Mecklenburg County Sheriff’s Department. Id. Defendant Daniel Bailey was elected as sheriff, and defendant Bailey then terminated plaintiff’s employment. See id. Plaintiff filed this lawsuit alleging she had been terminated for unlawful reasons. See id. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, and the trial court granted summary judgment for defendants, dismissing plaintiff’s claims. Id. Plaintiff appealed, and this Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment. Id. at 601, 771 S.E.2d at 632. Plaintiff then petitioned the North Carolina Supreme Court for discretionary review, and the Supreme Court affirmed this Court’s opinion in January of 2016. See Young v. Bailey, 368 N.C. 665, 781 S.E.2d 277. In November of 2017, plaintiff filed a motion with the trial court under Rule 60(b)(6) for relief from judgment, arguing she was entitled to resurrect her claim based upon the United State Supreme Court’s opinion in Heffernan v. City of Patterson, N.J., 136 S. Ct. 1412, 194 L. Ed 2d 508 (2016), which was decided after the North Carolina Supreme Court had affirmed the dismissal of her claim. Plaintiff alleged Heffernan controls this case. On 16 February 2018, the trial court entered an order denying plaintiff’s motion. Plaintiff appeals. Plaintiff Young’s case is in the same procedural position, and her argument is the same as the plaintiff’s argument in McLaughlin v. Bailey, ___ N.C. App. ___, ___, S.E.2d ___, ___ (Feb. 5, 2019), which is filed simultaneously with this opinion. For the same reasons as stated in McLaughlin, we reject plaintiff’s argument. Based -2- YOUNG V. BAILEY Opinion of the Court upon McLaughlin, we affirm the trial court’s 16 February 2018 order denying plaintiff’s Rule 60 motion. AFFIRMED. Judges DIETZ and BERGER concur. Report per Rule 30(e). -3-
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.
