We Are Improving!

We hope that you'll find our new look appealing and the site easier to navigate than before. Please pardon any 404's that you may see, we're trying to tidy those up!  Should you find yourself on a 404 page please use the search feature in the navigation bar.  

User Rating: 1 / 5

Star ActiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

A proposed settlement is in the works related to a lawsuit filed against former Roanoke Rapids Police Department Chief Chuck Hasty and others, according to a motion asking for an extension in the case.

On Tuesday Peter A. Moore Jr., a federal court clerk, signed a text order granting an extension in the case requested in a consent motion filed by the defendants in the case brought on by Daniel W. Jenkins, a current Roanoke Rapids police officer.

The defendants in the case are Hasty, the city, the police department and District Attorney Valerie Asbell.

“The undersigned counsel and plaintiff’s counsel have been working together diligently to resolve all claims in this matter and are very close to finalizing a settlement agreement,” the consent motion filed in the United States Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina says. “Upon information and belief due to the intervening holidays final approval of the settlement terms and execution of the necessary documents will not be completed before (Christmas).”

The document says the attorneys representing the defendants have conferred with Jenkins’ attorney and his attorney consents to an extension through and including January 24 for the defendants to respond to the complaint.

The documents do not detail any proposed terms of the settlement.

Jenkins is asking for damages of $250,000 and any other relief the court deems proper either individually, jointly or in the alternative together with interest, cost of the lawsuit and reasonable attorney fees.

Jenkins claims the action is to recover damages against the defendants for civil conspiracy; intentional infliction of emotional distress; negligent infliction of emotional distress; and the violation of the right of procedural due process of the United States Constitution.

The center of the lawsuit goes back to July 28 of 2018 when Jenkins was employed as a canine handler with the department and was called to the scene where a person was stopped for a tail light violation. The driver had a pistol which was within his immediate reach.

Jenkins was called to the scene when the driver asked for a supervisor and, according to the lawsuit, both he and the responding officer who made the traffic stop, after several times of demanding the person exit the vehicle, attempted to remove the individual. 

The lawsuit claims after several attempts by the officers a decision was made to deploy the dog, which bit the driver’s ear causing minor injury.

The lawsuit says the next day Hasty had an officer review the matter for excessive use of force. That officer’s opinion was that Jenkins’ actions showed no wrongdoing.

The lawsuit claims Hasty chose to ignore the finding and complete a second review.