Case law

EFIRD v. ROCKINGHAM COUNTY SHERIFF SAMUEL SCOTT PAGE

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 31, 2025

Further, under Fourth Circuit precedent, where an officer is denied qualified immunity, he is likewise not entitled to public official immunity. See Bailey v. … Kennedy, 349 F.3d 731, 742 (4th Cir. 2003) (noting that North Carolina public official immunity is “unavailable to officers who violate clearly established rights”); Cooper v.

FREEMAN v. SANCHEZ

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 20, 2025

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from personal liability for civil damages under section 1983 … clearly established right”).

SINGH v. UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 2, 2023

Finally, the individual capacity claims fail on qualified immunity grounds because the Individual Defendants did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (“Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.”)

Mallas v. Kolak

721 F. Supp. 748 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 13, 1989

of their qualified immunity. … Moreover, the court finds that officials sued for constitutional violations which are not clearly established do not lose their qualified immunity merely because their conduct also violates some statutory or administrative

Cranford v. Kluttz

278 F. Supp. 3d 848 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 30, 2017

established” for qualified immunity purposes. … interest may make it more difficult to find the law ‘clearly established’ when assessing claims of qualified immunity.”); Borucki v.

King v. Jefferies

402 F. Supp. 2d 624 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Nov 25, 2005

clearly established answers. … “If the law did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful,” qualified immunity should be granted. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 202, 121 S.Ct. at 2156.

Armstrong v. City of Greensboro

190 F. Supp. 3d 450 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jun 6, 2016

They also argue for *464 dismissal based on qualified immunity, asserting Plaintiff failed to plead sufficiently that Daughtry deprived him of his “clearly established constitutional rights.” … An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity if he has violated a clearly established constitutional right. See Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232 , 129 S.Ct. 808 .

Maney v. Fealy

69 F. Supp. 3d 553 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Nov 17, 2014

In determining whether a governmental official is entitled to qualified immunity, the Court must decide “whether a constitutional violation occurred and ... whether the right violated was clearly established.” … Instead, the Fourth Circuit rested its finding for the officer on the basis, of the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, finding that the officer did not violate clearly established law. Id. at 359-60 .

White v. Town of Chapel Hill

899 F. Supp. 1428 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jan 6, 1995

Examining a claim of qualified immunity requires “(1) identification of the specific right allegedly violated; (2) determining whether at the time of the alleged violation the right was clearly established; and (3) if so, … establish’ a right for qualified immunity purposes.”

Jones v. Chandrasuwan

76 F. Supp. 3d 603 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Dec 30, 2014

When subject to suit under § 1983, state and local officials may assert qualified immunity to shield them from liability for civil damages, “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Finding that this right is not clearly established, this court determines that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, even if there was some sort of constitutional violation.

Isquierdo v. Frederick

922 F. Supp. 1072 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Apr 22, 1996

“does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … For the purpose of determining whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity the plaintiffs rights must be clearly established under the particular circumstances confronting the official at the time of the questioned

Lea v. Kirby

171 F. Supp. 2d 579 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 27, 2001

Section 1988 Claim Police officers sued in their individual capacity are entitled to immunity from Section 1983 liability for money damages as long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Police officers performing a discretionary function are entitled to immunity from civil damages “unless (1) the officers’ conduct violates a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the right was clearly established

Harter v. Vernon

953 F. Supp. 685 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 22, 1996

The court, therefore, will grant Vernon qualified immunity in his individual capacity on the First Amendment claim because the contours of Plaintiffs’ rights were not clearly established. V. … The Fourth Circuit’s qualified immunity discussion in Orga is on-point: [W]e conclude that the right asserted by [the deputies] had not been clearly established by Fourth Circuit case law.

Gantt v. Whitaker

203 F. Supp. 2d 503 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Feb 26, 2002

Qualified immunity shields public officials from liability for civil damages to the extent their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … Consequently, Whitesides is entitled to qualified immunity.

Jennings v. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

240 F. Supp. 2d 492 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Nov 13, 2002

Dorrance is entitled to qualified immunity. 8 Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability under § 1983 so long as the conduct of the official “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … In regard to the qualified immunity claims of Defendants Hooker, Ehringhaus, Baddour, Miller, and Swofford, supervisory liability was clearly established under § 1983 at the time of their alleged conduct.

Jennings v. UNIVERSITY OF N. CAR AT CHAPEL HILL

240 F. Supp. 2d 492 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Nov 13, 2002

Dorrance is entitled to qualified immunity. [8] Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability under § 1983 so long as the conduct of the official "does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … In regard to the qualified immunity claims of Defendants Hooker, Ehringhaus, Baddour, Miller, and Swofford, supervisory liability was clearly established under § 1983 at the time of their alleged conduct.

Eberhart v. Gettys

215 F. Supp. 2d 666 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jul 11, 2002

— Stillwell, Smith, and Gettys — meet the requirements for qualified immunity. … However, this finding alone is not enough to abrogate Gettys’s qualified immunity.

Myers v. Town of Landis

957 F. Supp. 762 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 22, 1996

Qualified Immunity Mayor Beaver has asserted qualified immunity as a defense to personal liability. … for summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity will be denied.

Mandsager v. UNIV. OF NORTH CAROLINA AT GREENSBORO

269 F. Supp. 2d 662 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jul 1, 2003

Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability under § 1983 so long as the conduct of the official “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … To evaluate a claim of qualified immunity, it is necessary to determine whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right, and then determine whether that right was “clearly established at

Randleman v. Johnson

162 F. Supp. 3d 482 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Feb 17, 2016

Specifically, Sheriff Johnson contends that, while it may have been clearly established that he could not fire a current employee for engaging in constitutionally protected speech, it was not clearly established that he was … Accordingly, Sheriff Johnson is not entitled to qualified immunity on the basis of that argument.