The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:23-cv-00270-MR-WCM
MACKENZIE ELAINE BROWN, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) O R D E R
)
HENDERSON COUNTY )
SHERIFF’S OFFICE, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
_______________________________ )
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants Henderson County
Sheriff’s Office, Warren, Lindsay, Landers, Duncan, Reese, and Maybin’s
Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint [Doc. 39]; Defendants Oates and
Cowan’s Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint [Doc. 41]; the Magistrate
Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation [Doc. 53] regarding the
disposition of those motions; and the Plaintiff’s Objections to Memorandum
and Recommendation [Doc. 54].
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and the standing Orders of Designation
of this Court, the Honorable W. Carleton Metcalf, United States Magistrate
Judge, was designated to consider the Defendants’ motions to dismiss.
On February 21, 2025, the Magistrate Judge entered a Memorandum
and Recommendation in this case containing conclusions of law in support
of a recommendation regarding the Defendants’ motions. [Doc. 53]. The
parties were advised that any objections to the Magistrate Judge’s
Memorandum and Recommendation were to be filed in writing within
fourteen (14) days of service. The Plaintiff timely filed Objections on March
10, 2025.1 [Doc. 54]. Defendants Henderson County Sheriff’s Office,
Warren, Lindsay, Landers, Duncan, Reese, and Maybin filed a Reply to the
Plaintiff’s Objections on March 14, 2025 [Doc. 56], and Defendants Oates
and Cowan filed a Reply to the Plaintiff’s Objections on March 24, 2025 [Doc.
57].
After careful review of the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and
Recommendation, the Court finds that the proposed conclusions of law are
consistent with current case law. Accordingly, the Court overrules the
Plaintiff’s Objections and hereby accepts the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendations.2
1 The Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, filed a letter accompanying her Objections to
inform the Court that she did not receive the Memorandum and Recommendation in the
mail until February 25, 2025. [Doc. 55].
2 The Magistrate Judge recommends that all official capacity claims against Defendants
Warren, Lindsay, Landers, Duncan, Reese, and Maybin be dismissed. Official capacity
claims “generally represent only another way of pleading an action against an entity of
which an officer is an agent.” Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165–66 (1985) (citation
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Objections to
Memorandum and Recommendation [Doc. 54] are OVERRULED, and the
Memorandum and Recommendation [Doc. 53] is ACCEPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Henderson County
Sheriff’s Office, Warren, Lindsay, Landers, Duncan, Reese, and Maybin’s
Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint [Doc. 39] is GRANTED IN PART and
DENIED IN PART as follows:
(1) Defendants Henderson County Sheriff’s Office, Warren, Lindsay,
Landers, Duncan, Reese, and Maybin’s Motion is GRANTED as
to all claims against the Henderson County Sheriff’s Office; all
official capacity claims against Warren, Lindsay, Landers,
Duncan, Reese, and Maybin; the First Amendment retaliation
claim against Duncan; claims of false arrest, malicious
prosecution, and harassment; the Fourteenth Amendment claim
based on procedural due process; and claims of defamation,
omitted). “[A]n official-capacity suit is, in all respects other than name, to be treated as a
suit against the entity.” Id. at 166 (citation omitted). It is unclear from the Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint that she intended to bring claims against Defendants Warren,
Lindsay, Landers, Duncan, Reese, and Maybin in their official capacities in addition to her
claims against the Henderson County Sheriff’s Office, but to the extent that she does, any
official capacity claims would effectively be claims against the Henderson County Sheriff’s
Office. See id. Because the Court accepts the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation of
dismissal of the Plaintiff’s claims against the Henderson County Sheriff’s Office, the Court
also accepts the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation of dismissal of any official capacity
claims against Defendants Warren, Lindsay, Landers, Duncan, Reese, and Maybin.
invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional
distress. These claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
(2) In all other respects, Defendants Henderson County Sheriff's
Office, Warren, Lindsay, Landers, Duncan, Reese, and Maybin’s
Motion is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Oates and Cowan's
Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint [Doc. 41] is GRANTED. All claims
against Oates and Cowan in their official capacities are DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE. All claims against Oates and Cowan in their
individual capacities are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
This case shall proceed on the following claims brought pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983: (1) the Plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claim against
Warren, Lindsay, Landers, Reese, and Maybin; (2) the Plaintiff's equal
protection claim against Warren, Lindsay, Landers, Duncan, Reese, and
Maybin; and (3) the Plaintiff's conspiracy claim against Warren, Lindsay,
Landers, Duncan, Reese, and Maybin.
Signed: March 31, 2025
IT IS SO ORDERED.