Case law

Blackburn v. Trustees of Guilford Technical Community College

822 F. Supp. 2d 539 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 30, 2011

Community college employees clearly do not fall within any defined group in sections 126-5(a)(2) or (3). … The court granted the motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) because Blackburn failed to allege that she was a "qualified individual" under the ADA, thus rendering moot the sovereign immunity

PATTERSON

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Dec 4, 2025

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Thus, the traditional two-step qualified immunity inquiry requires a court to determine: “(1) whether the official violated a constitutional right; and if so, (2) whether the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time

York v. City of Burlington

225 F. Supp. 3d 341 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Dec 22, 2016

“Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from personal-capacity liability for civil damages under § 1983, insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Officials will receive immunity unless the § 1983 claim satisfies a two-prong test: (1) the allegations, if true, substantiate a violation of a federal statutory or constitutional right and (2) the right was “clearly established

Guseh v. North Carolina Central University

423 F. Supp. 2d 550 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 14, 2005

Plaintiff is clearly a member of a protected class and clearly did not receive the. desired promotion. … First, Plaintiff has clearly shown that he was a member of the protected class and that there is an issue of fact as to whether he was qualified for the position. Plaintiff alleges that Dr.

Warlick v. Wilson

902 F. Supp. 90 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jul 18, 1995

a response and, where appropriate, a summary judgment motion on qualified immunity grounds.’ ” Id. at 763 . … Plaintiffs fail to allege any details regarding the alleged incident nor do plaintiffs allege which clearly established constitutional rights were violated.

Mary's House, Inc. v. North Carolina

976 F. Supp. 2d 691 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 30, 2013

Plaintiffs do not clearly delineate in the complaint which of their claims they assert against which Defendants. … Every qualified applicant receives its share of the funds. (Doc. 1 ¶ 55.)

Pippen v. Scales

822 F. Supp. 305 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · May 17, 1993

Additionally, defendant Tomlinson is entitled to qualified immunity as an agent of the Board. … State Bar of Texas, 791 F.2d 435, 438 (5th Cir.1986) (investigator for State Bar entitled to qualified immunity). 2.

HARRIS BY TUCKER v. County of Forsyth

921 F. Supp. 325 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 28, 1996

The Individual Defendants are Entitled to Qualified Immunity. The individual Defendants have moved for summary judgment on Plaintiffs section 1983 claim on the basis that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … “Qualified immunity shields government officials from [section] 1983 liability, as long as ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known

Patterson v. Randazzo

160 F. Supp. 3d 849 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Feb 4, 2016

Qualified Immunity Even if O’Hal, Randazzo, and Flynt acted unreasonably, they may nevertheless be entitled to summary judgment on the grounds of qualified immunity. … Officers are entitled to qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Pearson v.

SMITH v. CITY OF GREENSBORO

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 25, 2020

However, as the above discussion of qualified immunity makes clear, Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that the Officers violated Smith’s clearly established right to be free from excessive force. … Clearly Established Right The Paramedics contend that, even if their failure to provide timely aid violated Smith’s rights, they are still entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly

Sheaffer v. County of Chatham

337 F. Supp. 2d 709 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 17, 2004

. *722 An inquiry into qualified immunity involves a two-step analysis. … The second step in the qualified immunity analysis requires the court to determine whether the right alleged to have been violated was “clearly established.”

Massasoit v. Carter

439 F. Supp. 2d 463 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jul 12, 2006

As for Butler’s assertion of qualified immunity, a police officer is immune from claims brought under § 1983 unless his conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Therefore, just as Butler’s qualified immunity claim failed on plaintiffs’ excessive force claims under § 1983, his public officer immunity claim fails as to the state law claims. 4.

Smith v. McDonald

562 F. Supp. 829 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Apr 28, 1983

, McDonald would be clearly entitled to only a qualified privilege. II. … “The decisions in this jurisdiction, as well as others, clearly establish that a publication is libelous per se, or actionable per se, if when considered alone without innuendo: (1) It charges that a person has committed

Yacovelli v. Moeser

324 F. Supp. 2d 760 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jul 7, 2004

A claim can be dismissed on qualified immunity grounds if the allegations of a complaint against a public official fail to state a violation of a clearly-established right. Korb v. … Courts evaluate qualified immunity claims by first determining wheth *765 er the plaintiffs’ allegations, if true, establish the deprivation of a constitutional right. Mellen v.

Oliver v. Baity

208 F. Supp. 3d 681 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 23, 2016

Qualified Immunity Finally, the Court notes that, in their Answer, all Defendants have asserted the doctrine of qualified immunity as an affirmative defense to Plaintiff’s federal claims, and the Schatzman Defendants have … Qualified immunity is an “immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability ... [which is] effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial.” Mitchell v.

Love-Lane v. Martin

201 F. Supp. 2d 566 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 26, 2002

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, public officials are shielded from liability for civil damages to the extent their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … In response to Martin’s assertion of qualified immunity, Plaintiff offers the following; Martin cannot establish his defense of qualified immunity as a matter of law.

Dickinson v. University of North Carolina

91 F. Supp. 3d 755 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 16, 2015

To succeed on a statute-of-limitations defense at this stage, all facts necessary to show the time bar must clearly appear “on the face of the complaint.” Id. a. … A “qualified individual with a disability” is defined the same as it is under the ADA. See 29 U.S.C. § 705 (20)(B).

North Carolina Ex Rel. Hailey v. Westmoreland

267 F. Supp. 2d 497 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jun 18, 2003

This is because government officials (including police officers), when performing duties within the scope of their employment, are immune from suit unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional … Therefore, he is entitled to qualified immunity.

TYLER v. POOLE

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Nov 25, 2019

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Thus, the two-step qualified immunity inquiry requires a court to determine (1) whether Plaintiff has alleged facts that make out a violation of a constitutional right and (2) whether that right was clearly established

Blackburn v. Trustees of Guilford Technical Community College

733 F. Supp. 2d 659 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 17, 2010

. §§ 12101 et seq., is barred by sovereign immunity. The parties have provided supplemental briefing on the sovereign immunity issue. (Docs. 22, 23, 25, 26.) … To establish a prima facie case of discriminatory firing under Title I, a plaintiff must prove: (1) she has a “disability”; (2) she is a “qualified individual”; and (3) in “discharging [her], [her] employer discriminated