Parlier v. Burke County Board of Education et al

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:25-cv-00247-MR-WCM
TAYLOR PARLIER, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. )
)
BURKE COUNTY BOARD OF )
EDUCATION; BURKE COUNTY )
PUBLIC SCHOOLS; ) O R D E R
SUPERINTENDENT MIKE SWAN; )
HR DIRECTOR KEITH RECKER; )
DIRECTOR OF MAINTENANCE )
BOB ACORD; FORMER DIRECTOR )
OF CUSTODIAL OPERATIONS MARK )
WHEELER; and PRINCIPAL )
LEANNA MCKINNEY, )
)
Defendants. )
_______________________________ )
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss [Doc. 2] and the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and
Recommendation [Doc. 5] 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.
Case 1:25-cv-00247-MR-WCM Document 6 Filed 01/28/26 Page 1 of 3

2
On December 11, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Memorandum
and Recommendation, recommending that the Motion to Dismiss be granted
with respect to the federal law claim, and that the Court decline to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. [Doc. 5 at 9]. The parties
were advised that any objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum
and Recommendation were to be filed in writing within fourteen (14) days of
service. [Id. at 10]. The period within which to file objections has now
expired, and no written objections to the Memorandum and
Recommendation have been filed.
After a careful review of the Memorandum and Recommendation, the
Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge’s proposed conclusions of law
are correct and consistent with current case law. Accordingly, the Court
accepts the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that the Motion to Dismiss
be granted.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Memorandum and
Recommendation [Doc. 5] is ACCEPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 2] is
GRANTED, and the Plaintiff’s federal claim is DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.
Case 1:25-cv-00247-MR-WCM Document 6 Filed 01/28/26 Page 2 of 3

3
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court declines to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s state law claims, and such
claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed: January 27, 2026
Case 1:25-cv-00247-MR-WCM Document 6 Filed 01/28/26 Page 3 of 3