Campbell v. North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services et al

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:25-cv-00068-MR-WCM
LINDA CAMPBELL, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs . ) O R D E R
)
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT )
OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, )
et al., )
)
Defendants. )
________________________________ )
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint [Doc. 19] and the Magistrate
Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation [Doc. 23] regarding the
disposition of the Motion to Dismiss.
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 above-referenced motion and to
submit a recommendation for its disposition.
On March 3, 2026, the Magistrate Judge issued a Memorandum and
Recommendation, recommending that the Motion to Dismiss be granted in
part and denied in part. [Doc. 23 at 37]. The parties were advised that any
Case 1:25-cv-00068-MR-WCM Document 26 Filed 05/20/26 Page 1 of 3

2
objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation
were to be filed in writing within fourteen (14) days of service. [Id. at 38]. On
March 17, 2026, the Defendants timely filed an objection requesting that the
Court modify the Magistrate Judge’s recommended disposition and dismiss
the Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim. [Doc. 24]. For grounds, the
Defendants contend that the Plaintiff’s conclusory allegations are insufficient
to establish the existence of a contract and that the Plaintiff consented to the
dismissal of her breach of contract claim. [Id. at 3-6]; see also [Doc. 20 at
24 (“Plaintiff consents to dismissal, without prejudice, of the following claims
as against Defendant NCDHHS: . . . Breach of Contract Count VIII.”)]. The
deadline for the Plaintiff to file a reply to the Defendants’ objection has now
passed, and the Plaintiff has not filed a reply.
After a careful review of the Memorandum and Recommendation, the
Court concludes that the Defendants’ objection should be sustained, and in
light of the Plaintiff’s concession, the Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim
should be dismissed. The Court further concludes that the Magistrate
Judge’s proposed conclusions of law are otherwise correct and consistent
with current case law. Accordingly, the Court will accept in part the
Magistrate Judge’s recommendation and modify the recommendation as to
Case 1:25-cv-00068-MR-WCM Document 26 Filed 05/20/26 Page 2 of 3

3
the disposition of the Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim. The Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss will therefore be granted in part and denied in part.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Memorandum and
Recommendation [Doc. 23] is ACCEPTED IN PART and MODIFIED IN
PART. The Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint
[Doc. 19] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The motion is
DENIED as to Counts III and X. The motion is GRANTED as to all other
claims.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: May 20, 2026
Case 1:25-cv-00068-MR-WCM Document 26 Filed 05/20/26 Page 3 of 3