{ "id": 8919895, "name": "HAROLD DEAN VENABLE and STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, ex rel., HAROLD DEAN VENABLE, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. C.D. VERNON, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Sheriff of Rockingham County, North Carolina and U.S. FIDELITY & GUARANTY COMPANY, Defendants-Appellees", "name_abbreviation": "Venable v. Vernon", "decision_date": "2004-02-17", "docket_number": "No. COA03-230", "first_page": "702", "last_page": "707", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "162 N.C. App. 702" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 58-76-5", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "year": 2003, "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "494 S.E.2d 409", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "347 N.C. 397", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 551176, 551181, 551311, 551249, 551124 ], "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/347/0397-02", "/nc/347/0397-03", "/nc/347/0397-05", "/nc/347/0397-04", "/nc/347/0397-01" ] }, { "cite": "487 S.E.2d 843", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "845", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "127 N.C. App. 172", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11793354 ], "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "175", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/127/0172-01" ] }, { "cite": "131 S.E.2d 351", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1963, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "355", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "259 N.C. 597", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8561580 ], "year": 1963, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "603-4", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/259/0597-01" ] }, { "cite": "421 S.E.2d 348", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1992, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "332 N.C. 345", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2505409, 2504968, 2504747, 2505141, 2504699 ], "year": 1992, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/332/0345-01", "/nc/332/0345-02", "/nc/332/0345-05", "/nc/332/0345-04", "/nc/332/0345-03" ] }, { "cite": "418 S.E.2d 276", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "284" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "106 N.C. App. 496", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 5314074 ], "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "510" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/106/0496-01" ] }, { "cite": "483 S.E.2d 719", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1997, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "345 N.C. 646", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 53887, 54007, 54175, 54111 ], "year": 1997, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/345/0646-04", "/nc/345/0646-01", "/nc/345/0646-02", "/nc/345/0646-03" ] }, { "cite": "468 S.E.2d 471", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "475", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "121 N.C. App. 779", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11920344 ], "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "784", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/121/0779-01" ] }, { "cite": "333 S.E.2d 490", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1985, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "314 N.C. 331", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4686660, 4695653, 4695471, 4689718, 4689592 ], "year": 1985, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/314/0331-03", "/nc/314/0331-01", "/nc/314/0331-05", "/nc/314/0331-02", "/nc/314/0331-04" ] }, { "cite": "328 S.E.2d 818", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "826" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "74 N.C. App. 331", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8524570 ], "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "342" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/74/0331-01" ] }, { "cite": "381 S.E.2d 445", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "446-47" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "325 N.C. 172", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2488329 ], "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "175" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/325/0172-01" ] }, { "cite": "415 S.E.2d 200", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1992, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "331 N.C. 119", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2499683, 2502026, 2498378, 2501299, 2501692 ], "year": 1992, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/331/0119-05", "/nc/331/0119-03", "/nc/331/0119-01", "/nc/331/0119-04", "/nc/331/0119-02" ] }, { "cite": "412 S.E.2d 97", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "99" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "104 N.C. App. 652", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8523555 ], "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "655" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/104/0652-01" ] }, { "cite": "563 S.E.2d 571", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2002, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "355 N.C. 493", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 220106, 220010, 220045, 219924, 220085 ], "year": 2002, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/355/0493-04", "/nc/355/0493-01", "/nc/355/0493-05", "/nc/355/0493-02", "/nc/355/0493-03" ] }, { "cite": "550 S.E.2d 166", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "170" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "143 N.C. App. 612", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11436581 ], "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "617" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/143/0612-01" ] }, { "cite": "376 S.E.2d 425", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "427" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "324 N.C. 63", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2488503 ], "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "66" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/324/0063-01" ] }, { "cite": "546 S.E.2d 102", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2000, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "353 N.C. 265", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 135678, 135926, 135611, 135676, 135870 ], "year": 2000, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/353/0265-01", "/nc/353/0265-05", "/nc/353/0265-02", "/nc/353/0265-04", "/nc/353/0265-03" ] }, { "cite": "535 S.E.2d 357", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "361" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "139 N.C. App. 676", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9497637 ], "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "681" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/139/0676-01" ] }, { "cite": "575 S.E.2d 46", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "49", "parenthetical": "quoting Johnson v. Trustees of Durham Tech. Cmty. Coll., 139 N.C. App. 676, 681, 535 S.E.2d 357, 361, disc. review denied, 353 N.C. 265, 546 S.E.2d 102 (2000)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "155 N.C. App. 685", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9251800 ], "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "689", "parenthetical": "quoting Johnson v. Trustees of Durham Tech. Cmty. Coll., 139 N.C. App. 676, 681, 535 S.E.2d 357, 361, disc. review denied, 353 N.C. 265, 546 S.E.2d 102 (2000)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/155/0685-01" ] }, { "cite": "565 S.E.2d 140", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "146" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "355 N.C. 672", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 220147 ], "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "681" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/355/0672-01" ] }, { "cite": "359 S.E.2d 780", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "782" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "320 N.C. 621", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4726123 ], "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "623" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/320/0621-01" ] }, { "cite": "515 S.E.2d 438", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "441", "parenthetical": "quoting Branks v. Kern, 320 N.C. 621, 623, 359 S.E.2d 780, 782 (1987)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "350 N.C. 567", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 132244 ], "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "572", "parenthetical": "quoting Branks v. Kern, 320 N.C. 621, 623, 359 S.E.2d 780, 782 (1987)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/350/0567-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 806, "char_count": 13998, "ocr_confidence": 0.765, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.3004890917364487e-08, "percentile": 0.27106947161784334 }, "sha256": "6101dd3c78f9b70d620a943fe371f80d4b1fcae1d80d9239956b1e65e8c64c37", "simhash": "1:1788f872afbd6ec7", "word_count": 2188 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:27:54.754463+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges HUNTER and HUDSON concur." ], "parties": [ "HAROLD DEAN VENABLE and STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, ex rel., HAROLD DEAN VENABLE, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. C.D. VERNON, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Sheriff of Rockingham County, North Carolina and U.S. FIDELITY & GUARANTY COMPANY, Defendants-Appellees" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "McGEE, Judge.\nPlaintiff appeals from summary judgment granted in favor of defendants. Plaintiff brought this civil action seeking to recover damages from C.D. Vernon (defendant Vernon), individually and as Sheriff of Rockingham County, and from U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Company as surety upon the official bond of defendant Vernon.\nDefendant Vernon terminated plaintiffs employment as a deputy sheriff with a position title of detective with the Rockingham County Sheriff\u2019s Department (the Department) effective 15 July 1994. At that time, defendant Vernon also terminated the employment of six other deputy sheriffs. Plaintiff had been employed as a deputy sheriff by the Department since February 1990.\nAccording to defendant Vernon, he dismissed plaintiff because plaintiffs job performance was unsatisfactory. Defendant Vernon\u2019s decision .was based in part on Captain Gene Nelson\u2019s (Captain Nelson) assessment of plaintiff\u2019s performance. In a performance appraisal conducted on 11 March 1994 by the Department, plaintiff was rated \u201cbelow expectations\u201d in four out of twenty-two categories, resulting in a performance grade of 2.87. An employee who met expectations in all categories received a performance grade of 3.0. At the time of plaintiff\u2019s assessment, the average performance grade of appointees and employees of the Department was 3.42. Plaintiff was one of only two appointees or employees, and the only detective, in the Department to receive an average performance grade below the \u201cmeeting expectations\u201d mark.\nCaptain Nelson wrote a \u201cmemorandum to the file\u201d on 3 June 1992, detailing a conversation he had with plaintiff regarding plaintiff\u2019s \u201ccontinued tardiness on recontacts and poor arrest record.\u201d In a memorandum to plaintiff from Captain Nelson dated 14 October 1993, Captain Nelson emphatically stated that when he directed plaintiff to perform an assignment such as to check on the possible location of a fugitive, plaintiff was to attend to that assignment immediately. Plaintiff received a written reprimand on 15 November 1993 from Sergeant Wayne Wright (Sergeant Wright), for failing to immediately investigate a case of sex abuse involving a juvenile. Another memorandum to plaintiff from Captain Nelson dated 8 March 1994 listed cases assigned to plaintiff that remained outstanding and included the admonishment that \u201cSheriff Vernon requires the assigned [d]etective to recontact the victim within [seven] days. Two of the above cases are from January! Get these \u00edate reports caught up immediately!\u201d\nPlaintiff alleges he was wrongfully discharged from his position as deputy sheriff for political reasons, which he contends is a violation of public policy. Plaintiff testified at his deposition that he was repeatedly subjected to political pressure from others within the Department, with the exception of defendant Vernon, to support defendant Vernon in the Democratic primary and in his 1994 reelection campaign. Plaintiff stated that Sergeant Wright and Captain Nelson routinely referred to him as \u201cSam\u2019s boy,\u201d a reference to Sam Page, a friend of plaintiff\u2019s and former co-worker in the Department, who ran against defendant Vernon in the 1994 primary. According to plaintiff, Sergeant Wright, along with other detectives, suggested plaintiff should remove Sam Page\u2019s campaign sign from a location across the street from the church at which plaintiff\u2019s father was the pastor.\nSheriff Vernon\u2019s campaign manager stipulated that fifty-six of the one hundred appointees and employees of the Department contributed money to defendant Vernon\u2019s 1994 reelection campaign. Three of the seven individuals discharged by defendant Vernon in July 1994 contributed money to the campaign. Thirty of the Department\u2019s appointees and/or employees neither contributed to nor worked the polls during the campaign, and twenty-six of those thirty individuals were not terminated in July 1994.\nPlaintiff initially filed an action in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina seeking monetary damages and reinstatement to his position within the Department. Plaintiff stipulated to the dismissal of his federal lawsuit and subsequently filed a complaint in state court asserting he was wrongfully discharged in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 153A-99 and the North Carolina Constitution, in addition to a claim under defendant Vernon\u2019s official sheriff\u2019s bond. The trial court granted defendants\u2019 motion for summary judgment on or about 20 November 2002. Plaintiff appeals.\n\u201cThe party moving for summary judgment must establish the lack of any triable issue by showing that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.\u201d Garner v. Rentenbach Constructors, Inc., 350 N.C. 567, 572, 515 S.E.2d 438, 441 (1999) (quoting Branks v. Kern, 320 N.C. 621, 623, 359 S.E.2d 780, 782 (1987)); N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 56 (2003). An issue is genuine \u201cif it is supported by substantial evidence.\u201d DeWitt v. Eveready Battery Co., 355 N.C. 672, 681, 565 S.E.2d 140, 146 (2002). \u201cA genuine issue of material fact is of such a nature as to affect the outcome of the action.\u201d Salter v. E & J Healthcare, Inc., 155 N.C. App. 685, 689, 575 S.E.2d 46, 49 (2003) (quoting Johnson v. Trustees of Durham Tech. Cmty. Coll., 139 N.C. App. 676, 681, 535 S.E.2d 357, 361, disc. review denied, 353 N.C. 265, 546 S.E.2d 102 (2000)).\nIn order to prevail on a motion for summary judgment, the moving party must prove that an \u201cessential element of the opposing party\u2019s claim is non-existent, or by showing through discovery that the opposing party cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of his claim[.]\u201d Collingwood v. G. E. Real Estate Equities, 324 N.C. 63, 66, 376 S.E.2d 425, 427 (1989). Once the moving party has met that burden, the non-moving party must produce a forecast of evidence sufficient to demonstrate that a prima facie case will be established at trial. Prior v. Pruett, 143 N.C. App. 612, 617, 550 S.E.2d 166, 170 (2001), disc. review denied, 355 N.C. 493, 563 S.E.2d 571 (2002). All evidence, including any inference therefrom, is to be considered in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Id.\nIn North Carolina, \u201cin the absence of an employment contract for a definite period, both employer and employee are generally free to terminate their association at any time and without any reason.\u201d Salt v. Applied Analytical, Inc., 104 N.C. App. 652, 655, 412 S.E.2d 97, 99 (1991), cert. denied, 331 N.C. 119, 415 S.E.2d 200 (1992). Our Courts and the General Assembly have recognized exceptions to this common law rule. In Coman v. Thomas Manufacturing Co., our Supreme Court recognized that an employee may not be terminated for a reason offensive to public policy.\n\u201cWhile there may be a right to terminate a contract at will for no reason, or for an arbitrary or irrational reason, there can be no right to terminate such a contract for an unlawful reason or purpose that contravenes public policy. A different interpretation would encourage and sanction lawlessness, which law by its very nature is designed to discourage and prevent.\u201d\nComan, 325 N.C. 172, 175, 381 S.E.2d 445, 446-47 (1989), (quoting Sides v. Duke University, 74 N.C. App. 331, 342, 328 S.E.2d 818, 826, disc. review denied, 314 N.C. 331, 333 S.E.2d 490 (1985)). The Court defined \u201cpublic policy\u201d as the \u201cprinciple of law which holds that no citizen can lawfully do that which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against the public good.\u201d Id.\nPlaintiff argues that he is a county employee and therefore is entitled to the protections afforded by N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 153A-99. The express purpose of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 153A-99 is \u201cto ensure that county employees are not subjected to political or partisan coercion while performing their job duties[.]\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 153A-99 (2002). In Vereen v. Holden, this Court noted that if a county employee was fired due to his political affiliations and .activities, \u201cthis would contravene rights guaranteed by our State Constitution. . . . and the prohibition against political coercion in county employment stated in N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 153A-99,\u201d hence violating North Carolina public policy. Vereen, 121 N.C. App. 779, 784, 468 S.E.2d 471, 475 (1996) (citations omitted), remanded on other grounds, 345 N.C. 646, 483 S.E.2d 719 (1997). However, the issue before this Court is whether plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to defeat defendant\u2019s motion for summary judgment. We do not determine as to whether plaintiff is a county employee as defined by N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 153A-99.\nIn response to plaintiff\u2019s complaint, defendants maintained that plaintiff\u2019s dismissal was not politically motivated and instead was based on plaintiff\u2019s poor job performance. In an affidavit, Assistant County Manager Ben Neal stipulated to plaintiff\u2019s below par performance grade on plaintiff\u2019s performance appraisal completed in 1994. Department Staff Sergeants Michael Campbell and Ralph Campbell and Sergeant Cathy Luke stated in affidavits that they did not contribute to or participate in defendant Vernon\u2019s 1994 political campaign and that they felt no pressure to act otherwise. Defendant Vernon\u2019s 1994 campaign treasurer averred in an affidavit that a little over half the appointees and employees of the Department contributed financially to defendant Vernon\u2019s campaign and that three of the six individuals discharged along with plaintiff in July 1994 contributed financially to Sheriff Vernon\u2019s reelection campaign. Finally, defendant Vernon asserted at his deposition that plaintiff was fired due to poor performance and not for political reasons.\nDefendants, having met their burden to demonstrate that plaintiff was fired on grounds unrelated to politics and therefore no genuine issue of material fact existed, the burden then shifted to plaintiff to establish a forecast of evidence sufficient to support his complaint alleging wrongful discharge. Plaintiff\u2019s evidence to support his claim is based solely on his deposition in which he asserted he was subjected to political coercion instigated by Sergeant Wright, Detective Kendrick and Captain Nelson, as well as other employees, of the Department. Plaintiff alleges that they were acting as agents of defendant Vernon. Even after providing plaintiff with all favorable inferences reasonably drawn from the evidence, plaintiff\u2019s allegations amount to mere conjecture.\n\u201cAlthough evidence of retaliation in a case . . . may often be completely circumstantial, the causal nexus between protected activity and retaliatory discharge must be something more than speculation.\u201d Lenzer v. Flaherty, 106 N.C. App. 496, 510, 418 S.E.2d 276, 284, disc. review denied, 332 N.C. 345, 421 S.E.2d 348 (1992). \u201cA cause of action must be something more than a guess. A resort to a choice of possibilities is guesswork not decision.\u201d Kinlaw v. Willetts, 259 N.C. 597, 603-4, 131 S.E.2d 351, 355 (1963) (citations omitted). Where causation is rooted in mere speculation and surmise, \u201cit is insufficient to present a question of causation to the jury.\u201d Ellington v. Hester, 127 N.C. App. 172, 175, 487 S.E.2d 843, 845, disc. review denied, 347 N.C. 397, 494 S.E.2d 409 (1997) (citations omitted).\nIn the case before us, plaintiff produced insufficient evidence to defeat defendants\u2019 motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff provided no indication that should the case proceed, he would be able to produce evidence that his discharge was for any unlawful reason, thereby making a determination as to whether plaintiff is a county employee as defined by N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 153A-99 unnecessary. Thus, we find plaintiffs assignment of error number one to be without merit.\nBecause we conclude that the trial court acted properly in granting summary judgment to defendants, we need not address plaintiffs assignments of error numbers two, three, four, five, and seven. Further, plaintiff has failed to present any argument in support of his assignment of error number six and it is thus deemed abandoned pursuant to N.C.R. App. P. 28(b)(6).\nAffirmed.\nJudges HUNTER and HUDSON concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "McGEE, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Smith, James, Rowlett & Cohen, LLP, by Seth R. Cohen, for plaintiff-appellant.", "Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, P.L.L.C., by James R. Morgan, Jr., for defendants-appellees.", "Hafer & Caldwell, P.A., by Edmond W. Caldwell, Jr., for North Carolina Sheriffs\u2019 Association, amicus curiae." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "HAROLD DEAN VENABLE and STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, ex rel., HAROLD DEAN VENABLE, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. C.D. VERNON, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Sheriff of Rockingham County, North Carolina and U.S. FIDELITY & GUARANTY COMPANY, Defendants-Appellees\nNo. COA03-230\n(Filed 17 February 2004)\nPublic Officers and Employees\u2014 deputy sheriff \u2014 wrongful discharge\nThe trial court did not err in an action arising out of the alleged wrongful discharge of a deputy sheriff by granting summary judgment in favor of defendants, because: (1) defendants met their burden to demonstrate that plaintiff was fired on grounds unrelated to politics in order to shift the burden to plaintiff; and (2) plaintiffs evidence to support his claim is based solely on his deposition that asserted he was subjected to political coercion, which amounted to mere conjecture.\nAppeal by plaintiff from an order entered 20 November 2002 by Judge W. Douglas Albright in Superior Court, Rockingham County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 19 November 2002.\nSmith, James, Rowlett & Cohen, LLP, by Seth R. Cohen, for plaintiff-appellant.\nWomble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, P.L.L.C., by James R. Morgan, Jr., for defendants-appellees.\nHafer & Caldwell, P.A., by Edmond W. Caldwell, Jr., for North Carolina Sheriffs\u2019 Association, amicus curiae.\n. Under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 58-76-5 (2003), \u201cevery person injured by the neglect, misconduct, or misbehavior in office of any . .. sheriff. .. may institute a suit or suits against said officer or any of them and their sureties upon their respective bonds for the due performance of their duties in office in the name of the State . . . .\u201d Thus, the State of North Carolina is listed as a plaintiff in this case. However, in an effort to simplify matters, we will refer to plaintiff in the singular, indicating only Harold Venable." }, "file_name": "0702-01", "first_page_order": 730, "last_page_order": 735 }