This page uses extracted PDF text. Text can misread numbers, dates or table columns. Check the PDF before quoting or interpreting it. Redacted areas remain redacted.
28 U.S.C. § 1367 (c) . " [U] nder the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c),
authorizing a federal court to decline to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction, a district court has inherent power to dismiss the case
or, in cases removed from State court, to remand, provided the
conditions set forth in § 1367(c) for declining to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction have been met." Hinson v. Norwest Fin-
South Carolina, Inc., 239 F.3d 611, 617 (4th Cir. 2001) . In making
the determination regarding whether to retain jurisdiction, the
Fourth Circuit has recognized that section 1367(c) provides district
courts with "wide latitude in determining whether or not to retain
jurisdiction over state claims when all federal claims have been
extinguished." Shanaghan v. Cahill, 58 F.3d 106, 110 (4th Cir.
1995).
Here, Plaintiff failed to object to the Magistrate Judge's
recommendation dismissing all claims against the Sheriff except the
state law gross negligence claim, and this Court has adopted such
recommendation. Moreover, even though Plaintiff's alleged injuries
occurred in August of 2011, Plaintiff's federal complaint, filed
three years later in August of 2014, does not identify by name the
Deputy Sheriff whose actions were allegedly the direct cause of
Plaintiff's injuries. In the more than six months that the instant
action has been pending in this Court, Plaintiff has likewise failed
to identify the individual listed as "Jane Doe" in the complaint,Jump to an indexed page (5 of 5)