The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:22-CV-00617-KDB-WCM
CARISSA BROWN,
Plaintiff,
v. ORDER
UNITED STATES, ET AL.,
Defendants.
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (Doc. Nos. 17,
21), Plaintiff’s1 Motions to Deem Allegations Admitted and Motion for Summary Judgment
(Doc. Nos. 32, 37), the Memoranda and Recommendations (“M&R”) of the Honorable United
States Magistrate Judge W. Carleton Metcalf to resolve these motions in favor of Defendants,
(Doc. No. 41), Plaintiff’s objections to the M&R (Doc. No. 43) and Plaintiff’s proposed
Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 44). The Court has carefully considered these motions, the
M&R, and the parties’ filings and other pleadings of record in this action. The Court concludes
after its de novo review that the recommendations in the M&R to grant the Motions to Dismiss
and deny Plaintiff’s motions are correct and in accordance with law because, for the reasons
thoroughly discussed in the M&R, the individual Defendants have judicial and prosecutorial
1 The Complaint designates Carissa Brown as Plaintiff, describing Henry Brown as her “counsel”
and “consort.” Doc. No. 1 at pp. 1-2. The Motion to Deem Allegations Admitted and Motion for
Summary Judgment lists both Carissa Brown and Henry Brown as Plaintiffs. See Doc. Nos. 32,
37. The proposed Amended Complaint includes Henry Brown as an additional Plaintiff, but, like
the initial Complaint does not assert any specific claim on his behalf or describe the grounds on
which he could be a co-plaintiff with respect to Carissa Brown’s claims arising out of her arrest
and imprisonment. See Doc. No. 44. Accordingly, the Court will refer to Ms. Brown as the sole
Plaintiff in this action.
immunity, the United States has sovereign immunity and any surviving causes of action fail to
state a claim on which relief may be granted. See M&R at pp. 4-11. Further, the Court will
construe Plaintiffs pro se filing of an Amended Complaint as a Motion to Amend the Complaint
under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 15(a)(2), which it will also deny. The Amended Complaint asserts the
same claims and alleges the same facts as the initial Complaint. Thus, the proposed amendment
would be futile and should not be allowed. See Laber v. Harvey, 438 F.3d 404, 426 (4th Cir.
2006) (quoting Johnson v. Oroweat Foods Co., 785 F.2d 503, 509 (4th Cir. 1986), Foman v.
Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)) (Leave to amend a pleading should be denied “when the
amendment would be prejudicial to the opposing party, there has been bad faith on the part of the
moving party, or the amendment would [be] futile.”’).
ORDER
NOW THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge in the M&R, (Doc. No. 41),
are adopted;
2. Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (Doc. Nos. 17, 21) are GRANTED;
3. Plaintiff's Motions to Deem Allegations Admitted and Motion for Summary
Judgment (Doc. Nos. 32, 37) are DENIED;
4. Plaintiff's objections to the M&R (Doc. No. 43) are OVERRULED;
5. Plaintiff's request to file an Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 44) is DENIED; and
6. The Clerk is directed to close this matter in accordance with this Order.
SO ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED.
L Coo a
Kenneth D. Bell
United States District Judge elt