SMITH v. CHAPMAN, 3:14-cv-238-FDW-DSC. (2014)
Court: District Court, W.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20140715a09
Visitors: 13
Filed: Jul. 14, 2014
Latest Update: Jul. 14, 2014
Summary: ORDER FRANK D. WHITNEY, Chief District Judge. THIS MATTER is before the Court on several motions to dismiss (Docs. Nos. 17, 18, 19). Each Defendant has separately moved to dismiss the complaint. Specifically, each Defendant argues that Plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable federal claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and in addition, each Defendant argues this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. The Court has ca
Summary: ORDER FRANK D. WHITNEY, Chief District Judge. THIS MATTER is before the Court on several motions to dismiss (Docs. Nos. 17, 18, 19). Each Defendant has separately moved to dismiss the complaint. Specifically, each Defendant argues that Plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable federal claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and in addition, each Defendant argues this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. The Court has car..
More
ORDER
FRANK D. WHITNEY, Chief District Judge.
THIS MATTER is before the Court on several motions to dismiss (Docs. Nos. 17, 18, 19). Each Defendant has separately moved to dismiss the complaint. Specifically, each Defendant argues that Plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable federal claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and in addition, each Defendant argues this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.
The Court has carefully reviewed the Complaint, the well-briefed arguments of counsel, and the applicable case law and hereby DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE all Defendants' Motions to Dismiss (Docs. Nos. 17, 18, 19). The parties may reprise any relevant arguments in support of motions for summary judgment, should any be filed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
