Autry v. N.C. Dept. of Correction
Opinion of the Court
The undersigned have reviewed the prior Decision and Order based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Ford. The appealing party has not shown good ground to reconsider the evidence, receive further evidence, rehear the parties or their representatives, or amend the Decision and Order.
2. Plaintiff presented no evidence of any negligent acts as contended. While the plaintiff claims "negligence" in his affidavit, the evidence presented by plaintiff does not support any negligent acts, but instead intentional acts.
3. Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss based upon the fact that no negligent acts are alleged in plaintiff's affidavit.
4. At the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner, plaintiff moved to continue his case.
2. Furthermore, plaintiff has failed to name any negligent employee or agent of defendant. To recover under the Tort Claims Act, a plaintiff must identify the specific employees alleged to have been negligent and set forth the specific act or acts of negligence relied upon. Ayscoe v.North Carolina State Highway Commission,
3. The Deputy Commissioner's denial of plaintiff's motion to continue was proper. Plaintiff is not entitled to any relief as a result of that denial as plaintiff's claim would not benefit from further delay of this case.
2. Each party shall bear its own costs.
This the ___ day of December 2001.
S/_______________ DIANNE C. SELLERS COMMISSIONER
CONCURRING:
S/____________ BUCK LATTIMORE CHAIRMAN
S/______________ RENE C. RIGGSBEE COMMISSIONER
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.