# HERBERT J. MOORE, JR. v. WEYERHAEUSER NR

> District Court, E.D. North Carolina · April 2, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11360977

## Case

- **Full name:** HERBERT J. MOORE, JR. v. WEYERHAEUSER NR
- **Court:** District Court, E.D. North Carolina
- **Decided:** April 2, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11360977

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
NORTHERN DIVISION
No. 2:26-CV-4-BO-KS
HERBERT J. MOORE, JR., )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) OORDER and
) MMEMORANDUM &
WEYERHAEUSER NR, ) RRECOMMENDATION
)
Defendant. )

This pro se case is before the court on the application of Herbert Moore, Jr.
(“Plaintiff”) to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and for
frivolity review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the matter having been
referred to the undersigned by the Honorable Terrence W. Boyle, United States
District Judge. For the reasons set forth below, the court GRANTS Plaintiff’s
application to proceed in forma pauperis and RECOMMENDS that the complaint be
dismissed in part.
I. Posture
Plaintiff initiated this action on January 27, 2026. On January 29, 2026, the
court ordered Plaintiff to correct several deficiencies with his filings within fourteen
days of the order. (1/29/2026 Order [DE #3].) On February 18, 2026, the court received
an amended complaint,1 civil cover sheet, proposed summons, notice of self-

1 Plaintiff’s amended complaint supersedes and renders inoperative his
original complaint. , 873 F.3d 451, 455 (4th Cir.
2017) (citing , 238 F.3d 567, 573 (4th Cir. 2001)).
representation form, and an updated IFP application. (Am. Compl. [DE #4]; Civil
Cover Sheet [DE #4-1]; Prop. Summons [DE #4-2]; IFP Appl. [DE #5]; Notice Self-
Representation [DE #6].) The envelope was postmarked February 12, 2026, and the

court determines that Plaintiff complied with the deadline set in the January 29,
2026, order. The court will therefore consider these updated documents.
II. IFP Motion
The standard for determining in forma pauperis status is whether “one cannot
because of his poverty pay or give security for the costs . . . and still be able to provide
himself and dependents with the necessities of life.”
, 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948). Based on the information contained in

Plaintiff’s financial affidavit, the court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated
appropriate evidence of inability to pay the required court costs. Thus, Plaintiff’s
application to proceed in forma pauperis, as amended, is ALLOWED.
III. Background
Plaintiff sues his former employer, Defendant Weyerhaeuser NR (“Defendant”
or “Weyerhaeuser”), pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the

Americans with Disabilities Act, for retaliation and wrongful termination. (Am.
Compl.) Plaintiff states he filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) in December 2024 due to unlawful
employment practices by Defendant and shortly thereafter reported his concerns to
Defendant’s Human Resources department and to Defendant’s Chief Executive
Officer via email. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 7–8.) Plaintiff then suffered an injury while at work
and was “taken out of work by a doctor.” ( ¶ 9.) While on medical restriction and
away from work, Plaintiff states Defendant suspended him for alleged
insubordination and then terminated Plaintiff while Plaintiff was still not medically

cleared to return to work. ( ¶¶ 10–11.) Plaintiff alleges Defendant retaliated
against him for engaging in protected activity, i.e. filing the EEOC charge and
reporting unlawful practices to Human Resources, in violation of Title VII, and
wrongfully terminated Plaintiff while he was under medical restriction, in violation
of the ADA. ( ¶¶ 14, 18.)
III. Standard for Frivolity Review
Notwithstanding the prior determination that Plaintiff is entitled to in forma

pauperis status, the court is required to dismiss all or part of an action found to be
frivolous or malicious, which fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted, or
which seeks money damages from a defendant immune from such recovery. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2); , 434 F.3d 725, 728 (4th Cir. 2006). A case
is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact. , 490
U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Pro se complaints are entitled to a more liberal treatment than

pleadings drafted by lawyers. , 886 F.2d 721, 722–23 (4th Cir.
1989). However, the court is not required to accept a pro se plaintiff’s contentions as
true. , 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992). The court is permitted to “pierce
the veil of the complaint’s factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual
contentions are clearly baseless.” , 490 U.S. at 327. In making the “inherently
elastic” frivolity determination, , 376 F.3d 252, 256–57 (4th Cir.
2004), the court may “apply common sense,”
, 64 F.3d 951, 954 (4th Cir. 1995).
Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a complaint to give a

“short plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 8. The statement must give a defendant fair notice of what the claim is and
the grounds upon which it rests. , 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007). “A plaintiff must offer more detail . . . than the bald statement that he has a
valid claim of some type against the defendant.” , 275 F.3d 391, 405
(4th Cir. 2001); , 886 F.2d at 723 (affirming district court’s dismissal of
suit as frivolous where complaint “failed to contain any factual allegations tending to

support [plaintiff’s] bare assertion”). The complaint must contain “enough facts to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” , 550 U.S. at 570. While
the court must read the complaint carefully to determine if the plaintiff has alleged
facts sufficient to support his claims, , 886 F.2d at 724, the court is not required
to act as the pro se plaintiff’s advocate or to parse through volumes of documents or
discursive arguments in an attempt to discern the plaintiff’s unexpressed intent,

, 716 F.3d 801, 805 (4th Cir. 2013).
IV. Plaintiff’s Claims
While sparse and not a model of clarity, Plaintiff’s amended complaint contains
sufficient factual allegations for the court to discern that Plaintiff sues his former
employer, Weyerhaeuser, for retaliation and wrongful termination under Title VII.
Based on a liberal interpretation of Plaintiff’s amended complaint, the court cannot
say, at this stage of the litigation, that Plaintiff’s Title VII claims against Defendant
are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek relief from an immune defendant.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Title VII claims for retaliation and wrongful termination

survive frivolity review.
However, Plaintiff’s amended complaint alleges insufficient factual
information for the court to discern an ADA claim. The elements of an ADA claim are
“(1) a plaintiff was disabled; (2) he was a qualified individual; and (3) he suffered an
adverse employment action based on his disability.”
, 589 F. Supp. 3d 539, 547 (E.D. Va. 2022) (citing ,
780 F.3d 562, 572 (4th Cir. 2015)). A “qualified individual” is “an individual who, with

or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the
employment position that such individual holds or desires.” 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8).
“The ADA defines ‘disability’ as ‘(A) a physical or mental impairment that
substantially limits one or more major life activities . . .; (B) a record of such an
impairment; or (C) being regarded as having such an impairment (as described in
paragraph (3)).’” , ___ F. Supp. 3d ____,

____, 2024 WL 4665549, at *5 (E.D.N.C. 2024) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)). While
the court is mindful of Plaintiff’s pro se status, all Plaintiff has alleged is that
Defendant terminated him while he was away from work awaiting medical clearance
to return. Having already advised Plaintiff that his initial complaint was deficient
under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, (1/29/2026 Order at 1), the
undersigned recommends that Plaintiff’s ADA claim be dismissed. , 550
U.S. at 570; , 275 F.3d at 405; , 886 F.2d at 724.
CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the court GRANTS Plaintiff’s application for
leave to proceed without prepayment of fees, as amended [DE ##2, 5] and it
is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s ADA claim be dismissed as frivolous or for
failure to state a claim.
It is DIRECTED that a copy of this Memorandum and Recommendation be
served on Plaintiff, who is hereby advised as follows:
You shall have until AApril 20, 2026, to file written objections to the

Memorandum and Recommendation. The presiding district judge must conduct his
own review (that is, make a de novo determination) of those portions of the Order and
Memorandum and Recommendation to which objection is properly made and may
accept, reject, or modify the determinations in the Order and Memorandum and
Recommendation; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate
judge with instructions. , 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Local

Civ. R. 1.1 (permitting modification of deadlines specified in local rules), 72.4(b),
E.D.N.C. (May 2023).
If you do not file written objections to the Memorandum and Recommendation
by the foregoing deadline, you will be giving up the right to review by the presiding
district judge as described above, and the presiding district judge may enter an order
or judgment based on the Memorandum and Recommendation without such review.
In addition, your failure to file written objections by the foregoing deadline may bar
you from appealing to the Court of Appeals from an order or judgment of the presiding
district judge based on the Order and Memorandum and Recommendation. See
Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 846—47 (4th Cir. 1985).
This 2nd day of April 2026.

KIMBERLY A. SWANK
United States Magistrate Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11360977. Public record. Not legal advice.