Sierra White v. Tony Rogers, Henry Randle, Chaz Thompson, Edward Hayes, and...

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI ABERDEEN DIVISION SIERRA WHITE PLAINTIFF v. Civil Action No. 1:20-CV-187-GHD-DAS TONY ROGERS, HENRY RANDLE, CHAZ THOMPSON EDWARD HAYES, and KEVIN CROOK DEFENDANTS ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS Presently before the Court is Defendant Tony Rogers’s (“Defendant Rogers”) Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 136]. Plaintiff Sierra White (“Plaintiff”) makes no challenge this motion, and the response deadline has passed.

For approximately seven years, Plaintiff owned and operated a business in Aberdeen, Mississippi, utilizing a rented building owned by Defendant Rogers [1]. On August 28, 2020, Defendant Rogers allegedly informed Plaintiff she had seventy-two hours to vacate the premises due to the possibility of the building’s sale [/d.]. Later, on September 2, 2020, Defendant Rogers, accompanied by a police officer, allegedly entered the premises and “placed locks on the upper level of [Plaintiff's] business” returning the next day “to shut down [her] business” [/d.]. She subsequently filed suit against several defendants in Civil Action No, 1:20-cv-187. This Court has previously dismissed [117; 119; 128] all other defendants in this action except Defendant Rogers.

Plaintiff lists “Infliction of emotional Distress, Freedom of Speech threaten, Threats of being jailed without due process, Monetary loss, [and] obstructing business operations” as her injuries in this case. Though it is unclear from her Complaint [1] which specific causes of actions Plaintiff brings against Defendant Rogers, it is clear she cannot bring any of the federal claims against him because he is not a state actor contemplated under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or the US.

Constitution. Castaneda v, Planet Fitess, Inc., No. 24-51017, 2025 WL 1566633, at *1 (Sth Cir. June 3, 2025); Arvie v. Cathedral of Faith Missionary Baptist Church, No. 24-30759, 2025 WL 1565149, at *5 (Sth Cir. June 3, 2025), To hold a private actor liable under § 1983, “the challenged conduct must be ‘fairly _ attributable to the State,’” and this is accomplished if a plaintiff alleges: ““(1) an agreement between the private and public defendants to commit an illegal act and (2) a deprivation of constitutional rights, Allegations that are merely conclusory, without reference to specific facts, will not suffice.’” Arvie, 2025 WL 1565149, at *5, Plaintiff fails on both elements because she makes only bald allegations about Defendant Rogers colluding with the former state actor defendants, which does not suffice to prove that element, and she failed to show she was deprived of any constitutional right as evidenced in this Court’s prior opinions dismissing the state actors [113; 116]. Therefore, ail federal claims against Defendant Rogers must be dismissed.

This leaves pending only state law claims of wrongful eviction, breach of contract, trespass, and intentional infliction of emotional distress against Defendant Rogers, all of which are before this Court solely pursuant to supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. The Court declines to exercise such supplemental jurisdiction over these claims.

THEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED Defendant Rogers’s Motion to Dismiss [136] is GRANTED, all federal claims against Defendant Rogers are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and the Court DECLINES TO EXERCISE supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims. This case is 8 ok SO ORDERED, this, the day of March, 2026.

Abe fh Qo Lawes DISTRICT JUDGE