Reported / Citable
Background
Jennifer Jane Eggert brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Henderson County, the Henderson County Sheriff’s Department, Sheriff Botie Hillhouse, Investigator W. Thornton, and Officer Travis Lynn. The case was referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell for findings, conclusions, and recommendations.
Judge Mitchell recommended dismissing with prejudice the claims against Henderson County, the sheriff’s department, and Hillhouse for failure to state a claim. She also recommended staying and administratively closing the claims against Thornton and Lynn until resolution of a related criminal charge pending against Eggert. Eggert filed no objections to the report.
The Court’s Holding
Because Eggert did not timely object, the district court reviewed the magistrate judge’s factual findings for clear error or abuse of discretion and the legal conclusions to determine whether they were contrary to law. The court found no clear error, abuse of discretion, or legal conclusion contrary to law and adopted the report and recommendation.
The court dismissed with prejudice Eggert’s claims against Henderson County, the Henderson County Sheriff’s Department, and Hillhouse for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). It stayed and administratively closed the claims against Thornton and Lynn pending resolution of Eggert’s related criminal charge.
The court ordered Eggert, within 30 days after adjudication of the criminal charge, to file written notice stating whether she wants the remaining claims restored to the active docket or dismissed.
Key Takeaways
- The court adopted the unopposed magistrate judge’s report after applying clear-error, abuse-of-discretion, and contrary-to-law review.
- Claims against the county, sheriff’s department, and sheriff were dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim.
- Claims against the investigator and officer were stayed and administratively closed until the related criminal proceeding is resolved.
Why It Matters
The order ends Eggert’s claims against three defendants while preserving, but pausing, her claims against Thornton and Lynn. Administrative closure does not resolve those remaining claims on the merits; their future depends on the disposition of the related criminal charge and Eggert’s timely notice afterward.