Case law

SEELIG v. PERRY

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 10, 2020

Moving Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity with regard to Plaintiff’s claims against them in their individual capacity. … However, the Court does note that Defendants are entitled to sovereign immunity with regards to claims brought against them in their official capacity. See Cromer v.

KIRBY v. JOYNER

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Feb 5, 2024

. § 1983, he 4 must establish “that the alleged deprivation was committed under color of state law.” American Mfrs. Mut. Ins. … As an employee of the SECU, a private entity, Defendant Joyner does not qualify as a federal employee.

Doe v. United States

280 F. Supp. 2d 459 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 27, 2003

Even considering Jane Doe’s condition, however, she clearly was on inquiry notice no later than October 31, 1995 when Dr. Lane initiated a formal inquiry about the transfusion. … To prevail on the claim that Jane Doe’s consent was not informed consent, Plaintiffs bear the burden of marshaling expert testimony to establish: (1) what a reasonable medical practitioner in the same or similar community

RICHARDSON-BEY v. SHELTON

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jul 3, 2023

The final ground for dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(2) generally applies to situations in which doctrines established by the United States Constitution or at common law immunize governments and/or government personnel … § 1983 and common-law immunity doctrines, such as judicial, legislative, and prosecutorial immunity); cf. Allen v.

United States v. Duke Energy Corp.

218 F.R.D. 468 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Oct 22, 2003

While finding this approach was not improper, 7 it created uncertainty that specific documents would fully qualify for the deliberative process privilege. … This clearly demonstrates plaintiff's argument that this Court’s Order is not stare decisis, but simply involves a ruling concerning a limited number of documents. .

King v. Richardson

46 F. Supp. 510 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jul 20, 1942

After his death in 1919, the will was probated and his sons Smith and Lunsford, the designated executors and his wife, as executrix, qualified and acted as his personal representatives until Mrs. … Smith Richardson; Item III gives 10/100 interest to Lunsford Richardson, Jr.; Item IV gives each of his three daughters 10/100 interest; Item VI makes disposition of shares to daughters upon death of either; Item- VII establishes

Parks v. Alteon, Inc.

161 F. Supp. 2d 645 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Apr 16, 2001

Plaintiff Colby Parks is a diabetic and qualified for the pimagedine study initiated by the Defendants and conducted at UNC Hospitals in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. … The claim of breach of implied warranty of merchantability is established by Section 25-2-314 of the North Carolina Uniform Commercial Code (the “NCUCC”). N.C. Gen.Stat. § 25-1-101 et seq.

ASHBY v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 17, 2019

As Defendants do not raise governmental immunity as a defense, this court will assume for argument that these Defendants are not immune from suit. … Those statements were clearly related to the subject matter of that litigation and Young, as a lawyer in that litigation, is absolutely immune to civil liability for making those

DORIEN GREYSON ROSE v. BAPTIST CHILDREN'S HOMES OF NORTH CAROLINA

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Oct 29, 2019

Because the facts necessary to this affirmative defense are not clearly established on the face of the proposed amended complaint and referenced documents, and resolution of whether this exception applies requires a developed … The complaint and the job description do not clearly establish that the child care worker position is ministerial. Mr.

Bryant v. Woodall

363 F. Supp. 3d 611 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 25, 2019

The Magistrate Judge quite clearly expressed a sound concern over the parties' failure to address standing - specifically, whether Plaintiffs could establish a credible threat of prosecution. … Second, the amendment narrows the threshold medical determination of what conditions qualify for the exception, because a physician must now determine that the condition "necessitates" an "immediate" abortion.

Alliance for Legal Action v. United States Army Corps of Engineers

314 F. Supp. 2d 534 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Apr 27, 2004

Part 326 (establishing the Corps’s discretionary responsibility to initiate Section 404 enforcement actions). … Thus, merely arguing that FedEx utilizes other hubs with different configurations does not establish that the Corps’s elimination of such configurations at PTIA is clearly erroneous.

SHORT v. HARTMAN

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Feb 17, 2021

Short’s constitutional rights,” and therefore are entitled to qualified immunity. (Motion at 2.) … qualified immunity, (see Motion at 2); however, because the Court has found Mr.

MCCRAE v. RUSH

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Apr 28, 2025

Finally, as to the third factor, Defendants do not assert the defense of qualified immunity. … Since qualified immunity is unavailable in official capacity suits, this suggests that Defendants did not perceive the Complaint to state a claim against them as individuals.

Qwest Communications Corp. v. City of Greensboro

440 F. Supp. 2d 480 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jul 25, 2006

As evidenced by its title, the FTA clearly governs the telecommunications industry. … Section 1983 "imposes liability on anyone who, under color of state law, deprives a person 'of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.' ” Blessing v.

MILES v. KIJAKAZI

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 8, 2022

The Court 6 Sovereign immunity bars Plaintiff's request for relief against the United States or representatives thereof, and “fuJnless Congress has consented to a cause of action against the United States, there is no … further noted that “although Evans failed to exhaust administrative remedies, courts maintain jurisdiction over requests for a writ of mandamus if the plaintiff establishes that ‘the administrative process normally

SUTPHIN

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Oct 27, 2025

McClure, 865 F.2d 623, 626 (4th Cir. 1989) (“The action against the [clerk of court] in his official capacity is clearly one against the state of North Carolina. . . . … App’x 405, 406 (4th Cir. 2012) (“[A] court clerk is generally entitled to quasi-judicial immunity.” (citing Briscoe, 460 U.S.

ALLEN v. MINE

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Dec 4, 2019

capacity is not a suit 2(...continued) or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities … Thus, the Complaint fails to establish a Section 1983 claim against Defendant Mine, Defendant Bolac, Defendant Cerone, and Defendant Oten due to the lack of factual matter suggesting that any of

BANKS v. ALAMANCE-BURLINGTON BOARD OF EDUCATION

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jun 20, 2024

“To establish a prima facie case of race discrimination in employment under the McDonnell Douglas framework, a plaintiff must demonstrate: ‘(1) membership in a protected class; (2) satisfactory job performance … Jan. 8, 2019) (“[W]here a plaintiff alleges that she was the better qualified candidate for a promotion and yet was denied it, circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination exist.”).

Shoaf v. Kimberly-Clark Corp.

294 F. Supp. 2d 746 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Nov 25, 2003

Defendant clearly has a legitimate and substantial interest in keeping sensitive personnel matters confidential. … However, Plaintiff cannot rely on temporal proximity alone to establish pretext.

S-1 & S-2 Ex Rel. P-1 & P-2 v. Spangler

650 F. Supp. 1427 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Dec 31, 1986

Clearly, then, Plaintiffs maintain a private right of action through which to vindicate the loss of their procedural rights guaranteed by the EAHCA. … The question presented is whether that interpretation falls below the minimum level of protection established by the EAHCA.