Case law

WALLACE v. KIJAKAZI

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jan 28, 2022

If, at this step, the Government cannot carry its “evidentiary burden of proving that [the claimant] remains able to work other jobs available in the community,” the claimant qualifies as disabled. … However, the ALJ clearly considered and addressed the neutopsychological testing at both step two of the sequential analysis and in formulating Plaintiff's RFC.

MERCER v. O'MALLEY

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 23, 2024

that RFC, the claimant can “perform past relevant work”; if so, the claimant does not qualify as disabled. Id. at 179-80. … However, any error in this respect is clearly harmless in the present case, because none of the jobs identified by the vocational expert at step five of the sequential analysis involve the contested abilities.

PEZZULLO v. O'MALLEY

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 29, 2024

The Supplemental Security Income Program (SSI), established by Title XVI of the Act as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1381 ef seq., ptovides benefits to indigent disabled persons. … that RFC, the claimant can “perform past relevant work”; if so, the claimant does not qualify as disabled. Id. at 179-80.

HARRIS v. BOJANGLES' RESTAURANTS, INC.

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jul 2, 2021

Fauber in charge of the investigation that led to Harris’s termination, and he was present when Harris was terminated,” Fauber was “clearly a decisionmaker for Harris’s termination, … “An employee’s decision to report discriminatory behavior cannot immunize that employee from those petty slights or minor annoyances that often take place at work and that all employees

CURTIN

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · May 20, 2026

. § 1030 (the “CFAA”), creates a limited civil cause of action, but the plaintiff must plead a qualifying loss “by reason of a violation of this section.” See 18 U.S.C. § 1030(g). … its own or of a coordinate court in any circumstance, although as a rule courts should be loathe to do so in the absence of extraordinary circumstances such as where the initial decision was ‘clearly

KITCHEL v. United States

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Apr 27, 2023

“The FTCA represents a limited congressional waiver of sovereign immunity for injury or loss caused by the negligent or wrongful act of a [g]overnment employee acting within the scope of his or her employment.” … a plaintiff’s negligence so clearly that no other reasonable conclusion may be reached.”).

EPCON HOMESTEAD, LLC v. TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · May 26, 2021

Accordingly, at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage, “all facts necessary to the affirmative defense [must] ‘clearly appear[] on the face of the complaint.’” … Epcon brings its federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,3 which allows for relief for the “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.”

SELLERS v. WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY BAPTIST MEDICAL CENTER

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jan 21, 2022

result, the court will only enter summary judgment in favor of the moving party when the record “shows a right to judgment with such clarity as to leave no room for controversy” and clearly … Sellers seemingly did not qualify for this incentive bonus as she was below the 60th percentile for productivity.

UNIVERSAL PRESERVACHEM, INC. v. DELLS CHERRIES, LLC

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 11, 2025

The acknowledgments “clearly indicate[d] that [Plaintiff] is located at [a Mebane, North Carolina address]” (Docket Entry 15-1, ¶ 9) and “were emailed to [Defendant] by [Plaintiff’s] Customer … Two methods for achieving personal jurisdiction exist: (1) “specific jurisdiction,” in which the defendant’s qualifying contacts with North Carolina constitute the basis for the litigation

MONTGOMERY v. O'MALLEY

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 23, 2024

that RFC, the claimant can “perform past relevant work’; if so, the claimant does not qualify as disabled. Id. at 179-80. … As noted above, the AL]’s decision to then limit Plaintiff to work of a “routine and repetitive nature” is clearly tied to these specific concerns, and the Court can trace the AL]’s reasoning.

SHEPHERD v. KIJAKAZI

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Feb 15, 2022

It showed that [Plaintiff] established goals. ‘The goals were specifically tailored to improve [her] condition. Ms. … However, the administrative decision, as set out above, clearly recounts Plaintiffs testimony “that she can only complete her chores for a short period of time . . .

BAUCOM v. BERRYHILL

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Feb 28, 2020

The ALJ ultimately ruled that Plaintiff did not qualify as disabled. (Tr. at 12-29.) … Welshofer had treated Plaintiff since 2008, the ALJ clearly discussed the length and frequency, as well as the nature and extent, of Dt.

COLE v. MONTGOMERY

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 8, 2023

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s Complaint, read liberally, alleges only one claim that is clearly criminal in nature—her first claim for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1028 and 1738. (ECF No. 1 at 9.) … “‘[M]erely private conduct, no matter how discriminatory or wrongful,’ fails to qualify as [an action taken under color of state law].” Philips v. Pitt Cnty. Mem’l Hosp., 572 F.3d 176, 181 (4th Cir. 2009).

RIDENHOUR v.SAUL

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 19, 2019

“RFC is to be “perform past televant work”; if so, the clairmant does not qualify as disabled. Id. at 179-80. … Overall, the ALJ’s analysis clearly indicates that he discounted Dr. Dunn’s opinions to the degree they were not supported by Dr.

Penner v. United States Postal Service

879 F. Supp. 553 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Feb 21, 1995

FINDINGS OF FACT (1) During 1966-1967, the United States Postal Service (by its predecessor in interest) sought to establish a Main Post Office in Burlington, North Carolina. … Plaintiff presented the testimony of qualified experts (Joseph Penner, C. Randall Wedding, and Alfred C. Maevis) regarding the condition of the parking lot.

MELVIN v. O'MALLEY

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 26, 2024

“In order to satisfy a listing and qualify for benefits, a person must meet all of the medical criteria in a particular listing.” Bennett v. … CONCLUSION Plaintiff has not established an error warranting remand.

FAIRWAY OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, LLC v. CITY OF HIGH POINT

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Dec 28, 2022

Billboards did not qualify for an exemption. Doc. 34 at ¶ 7. … See Doc. 34 at ¶ 7 (stipulating that billboards did not qualify for an exemption). All billboards are treated alike under the ordinance.

Farrin v. Thigpen

173 F. Supp. 2d 427 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 16, 2001

Under *439 Plaintiffs’ logic, all ads would be immune from challenge as long as they were subject to more than one interpretation. … The junior man’s expression clearly indicates that he knows the senior man will not be happy with the name of the firm he identifies.

Courtaulds North America, Inc. v. North Carolina National Bank

387 F. Supp. 92 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jan 7, 1975

In dealing with letters of credit, it is a custom and practice in the banking trade for a bank to only treat a document as an invoice which clearly is marked on its face as “Invoice.” 47. … their expressions and other conduct. . . . (3) A course of dealing between parties ... in the vocation or trade in which they are engaged or of which they are or should be aware give particular meaning to and Supplement or qualify

KEY v. KIJAKAZI

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 31, 2021

The Supplemental Security Income Program (SSI), established by Title XVI of the Act as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1381 et seq., provides benefits to indigent disabled persons. … that RFC, the claimant can “perform past relevant work”; if so, the claimant does not qualify as disabled. Id. at 179-80.