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: 5 / 5

Star ActiveStar ActiveStar ActiveStar ActiveStar Active
 

The city of Roanoke Rapids and an officer who filed a federal lawsuit against it settled through the city’s insurance provider for $2,500, according to a copy of the agreement.

rrspin.com earlier this week requested the terms of the settlement under North Carolina General Statute 132-1.3.

The settlement agreement and release document which was signed last month says the plaintiff in the case — Daniel W. Jenkins, a police officer with the city’s police force — desired to resolve all matters relating to disciplinary action taken against him “in an amicable fashion.”

The basis of the federal lawsuit Jenkins filed against the city stems from a matter in July of 2018 in which he was disciplined. Jenkins claimed in the lawsuit that his discipline was wrongful and in violation of public policy and the city denied his allegations.

Besides the $2,500 settlement, further consideration of the compromise states that Jenkins agrees to release the city and all of its officers and employees in their individual and official capacities of all claims and causes of action that could have been brought before the signing of the settlement agreement and release.

Under the no admission of liability clause of the document, it states, “The parties specifically agree that this agreement represents the settlement of disputed claims and was entered into solely for the purposes of avoiding the expenses and inconveniences of administrative proceedings and/or litigation.

“The parties further agree this agreement is not intended as or to be construed as an admission of liability by any party, all of whom expressly deny any wrongdoing or liability; and that neither party shall be considered a prevailing party for any purpose.”

In action taken in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina earlier this week, Jenkins entered a voluntary dismissal of his lawsuit with prejudice and affirmed he has no pending or potential claims against the released parties.

Under the confidentiality clause of the agreement, Jenkins would not be in violation of the provision to respond to questions about his employment with the city by stating he resigned and was not terminated and that the parties amicably resolved any disputes between them.

In the document Jenkins agreed that he will not make statements or remarks disparaging to the city or its police department as well as the circumstances surrounding his discipline by the city, the police department or both.

The city and police department agree they will not retaliate against Jenkins because he filed the lawsuit and participated in any other manner in the investigation or proceeding relating to the agreement.

The lawsuit goes back to July 28 of 2018 when Jenkins was employed as a canine handler with the Roanoke Rapids Police 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 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 former Roanoke Rapids police Chief Chuck Hasty, now police chief in Enfield, 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. 

The initial lawsuit had named Hasty and District Attorney Valerie Asbell as defendants in the case.

Early on in the proceedings, both Hasty and Asbell were dismissed as defendants.