MEMORANDUMAND RECOMMENDATION

DENNIS L. HOWELL, Magistrate Judge.

Pending before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss [# 73]. Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brought this action against a number of Defendants asserting a number of claims arising out of the appointment of an interim guardian for Plaintiff's deceased father and his father's subsequent medical care and autopsy. Defendant Joyce Ann Nash moves to dismiss the claims asserted against her in the Complaint. The Court RECOMMENDS that the District Court GRANT the motion [# 73].

I. Procedural Background

Plaintiff filed his Complaint on September 12, 2014. Defendants Rutherford County Department of Social Services, John Carroll, Vic Martin, and Ann Padgett (the "Rutherford County Defendants") moved to dismiss all the claims asserted against them in the Complaint. Similarly, Defendants the United States of America, Dr. Ernest T. Ahl, Jr., Dr. Sonny W. Tucker, Jr. and Sandy F. Pierce (the "Federal Defendants") moved to dismiss all the claims asserted against them in the Complaint. Defendant Joyce Ann Nash, who was represented by counsel at the time, decided to file an Answer.

The Court then entered a Memorandum and Recommendation recommending that the District Court grant the Motions to Dismiss and dismiss the claims against the Rutherford County Defendants and the Federal Defendants. (M. & R., Jul. 8, 2015, ECF No. 58; M. & R., Jul. 8, 2015, ECF No. 59.) The District Court affirmed the Court's Memorandum and Recommendation and dismissed all the claims asserted against the Federal Defendants and the Rutherford County Defendants. (Order, Aug. 12, 2015, ECF No. 64.) Accordingly, only the claims asserted against Defendant Nash remained pending in this Court.

Plaintiff then appealed the decision of the District Court to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal, McAdoo v. U.S, No. 15-1938 (4th Cir. Dec. 21, 2015), but stayed the Mandate pursuant to Rule 41(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. The Fourth Circuit issued the Mandate on March 1, 2016. Finally, on February 13, 2017, Defendant Nash moved to dismiss the claims asserted against her in the Complaint. The District Court referred the Motion to Dismiss to this Court. Accordingly, the motion is now properly before this Court for a Memorandum and Recommendation to the District Court.

II. Factual Background

The Court incorporates the factual background set forth in its prior Memorandums and Recommendations into this Memorandum and Recommendation. (M. & R., Jul. 8, 2015, ECF No. 58; M. & R., Jul. 8, 2015, ECF No. 59.)

III. Analysis

Plaintiff asserts a negligence claim, a gross negligence claim, and a Section 1983 claim against Defendant Nash. In its July 8, 2015, Memorandum and Recommendation, the Court recommended that the District Court dismiss these same claims asserted against the Rutherford County Defendants because the claims were all barred by the applicable three year statute of limitations. (M. & R., Jul. 8, 2015, at pp. 9-13, ECF No. 58.) The claims asserted against Defendant Nash are subject to dismissal for the same reasons as the claims against the Rutherford County Defendants — the claims are time-barred. Accordingly, the Court incorporates the analysis and legal authority set forth in its prior Memorandum and Recommendation [#58] into the body of this Memorandum and Recommendation. For the reasons stated in the prior Memorandum and Recommendation [# 58], the claims against Defendant Nash are also subject to dismissal because the claims all accrued more than three years prior to Plaintiff bringing this action. All of the actions forming the basis of the claims against Defendant Nash occurred in 2010, and Plaintiff did not bring this action until September 12, 2014. The Court, therefore, RECOMMENDS that the District Court GRANT the Motion to Dismiss [# 73] and DISMISS the claims against Defendant Nash.

IV. Conclusion

The Court RECOMMENDS that the District Court GRANT the Motion to Dismiss [# 73]. The Court RECOMMENDS that the Court DISMISS all the claims asserted against Joyce Ann Nash.

Time for Objections

The parties are hereby advised that, pursuant to 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1)(C), and Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, written objections to the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation contained herein must be filed within fourteen (14) days of service of same. Responses to the objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of service of the objections. Failure to file objections to this Memorandum and Recommendation with the district court will preclude the parties from raising such objections on appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985), reh'g denied, 474 U.S. 1111 (1986); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1208 (1984).