Case law

Chambers v. Ishee

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Apr 17, 2023

In its frivolity review, this Court must determine whether a complaint raises an indisputably meritless legal theory or is founded upon clearly baseless factual contentions, such as fantastic or delusional … To establish liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must show that the defendants “acted personally” to cause the alleged violation. See Vinnedge v.

Ziegler v. Polaris Industries, Inc.

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Feb 7, 2024

Sept. 4, 2020) (“[T]he Court finds that Plaintiff has not established the reliability of Dr. … [e]xperiments does not qualify as ‘draft expert reports.’”).

Elmore v. Mecklenburg County Sheriff's Department

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jun 27, 2023

In its frivolity review, this Court must determine whether the Complaint raises an indisputably meritless legal theory or is founded upon clearly baseless factual contentions, such as fantastic or delusional … Individual Capacity Claim against Defendant McFadden To establish liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must show that the defendants “acted personally” to cause the alleged violation.

Flowers v. Electrolux North America, Inc.

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Feb 8, 2022

However, the PIP for both Flowers and Kean clearly warned that if the employee failed to follow the PIP they could be terminated before the scheduled conclusion of the PIP. … Flowers’ Prima Facie Disability Claim The ADA prohibits employers from discriminating based on the known physical or mental impairments of a “qualified individual with a disability.” 42 U.S.C.

Curry v. United States

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Dec 13, 2019

The court found that the armed robbery at issue was clearly a violent crime under the guidelines and overruled Petitioner’s objection to the career offender enhancement. (Id., Doc. No. 293 at 44-46). … Simms, 914 F.3d 229 (4th Cir. 2019), in which the Fourth Circuit held that Hobbs Act conspiracy does not categorically qualify as a crime of violence under § 924(c)’s force clause.

Pulis v. Saul

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · May 3, 2021

Having established Plaintiff’s RFC, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff could perform her past work as a cashier/checker. (Tr. at 32). … Plaintiff states that these facts and others in the medical record showed that Plaintiff qualified for this listing. (Doc.

Trilogy Communications, Inc. v. Comm Scope Co.

754 F. Supp. 468 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Mar 26, 1990

Third, Trilogy’s expert, though clearly qualified in his field, was generally unfamiliar with the manufacture of coaxial cable and acknowledged that he had never visited Comm Scope’s plant or seen any coaxial cable produced … The evidence shows, clearly and convincingly, that the answer must be in the affirmative.

Bolen v. Philemon

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Mar 28, 2023

To establish liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must show that the defendants “acted personally” to cause the alleged violation. See Vinnedge v. … immunity on Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim against him.

Woodie v. McFadden

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Apr 25, 2022

In its frivolity review, a court must determine whether the Complaint raises an indisputably meritless legal theory or is founded upon clearly baseless factual contentions, such as fantastic or delusional … Gibbs, 550 F.2d 926, 928 (4th Cir. 1977) (to establish liability under § 1983, a plaintiff must show that the defendants “acted personally” to cause the alleged violation); Monell, 436 U.S.

Mason v. Health Management Associates, Inc.

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 16, 2023

Even if the NPA qualifies as a statement compromising on a claim, Rule 408 would only prevent its admission to prove the validity of a disputed claim or for impeachment purposes. … Apr. 29, 2021) (holding that Rule 408 does not prohibit admission of settlements with government entities to establish a pattern of conduct that demonstrated knowledge).

Scott v. United States

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Apr 5, 2022

After examining the record in this matter, the Court finds that the arguments 2 The PSR prepared before sentencing noted that Petitioner would have qualified as an Armed Career Criminal and been subject to a 15-year minimum … Here, Petitioner claims that the Judge stated at sentencing that Petitioner “clearly … was NOT in possession of a gun during [his] last drug transaction” and that he, the Petitioner, would not have pleaded guilty had his

Taylor v. Saul

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Dec 18, 2019

Garcia did and continued to qualify his responses stating they were based on the claimant's report (Exhibit 19F). For the same reasons given above for Dr. … However, again, this is not clearly stated in the ALJ’s opinion and should be the subject of explicit consideration by the ALJ on remand.

Watkins v. Goodwin

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jan 26, 2022

and identify and dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … The Plaintiff alleges that his property loss resulted from random, unauthorized acts rather than an established procedure.

Murdock v. Ingram

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Oct 7, 2024

review and identify and dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … In its frivolity review, this Court must determine whether a complaint raises an indisputably meritless legal theory or is founded upon clearly baseless factual contentions, such as fantastic or delusional scenarios.

Jefferson

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Mar 10, 2026

Although not clearly visibly in the footage, Defendant Boykins, who Plaintiff claims is an “ex semi pro wrestler,” appears to quickly take the Plaintiff down. [BWC]. … Moreover, because the forecast of evidence does not support that a constitutional right was violated as to this use of force, these Defendants would also be protected by qualified immunity.

Hill v. United States

844 F. Supp. 263 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Oct 13, 1993

The Court finds the evidence does not establish Plaintiff was the mere nominee of her father. … While there is no direct evidence, it may clearly be inferred that he knew full well his daughter would let he and his wife live there.

Cox v. Indian Head Industries, Inc.

123 F. Supp. 2d 892 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jun 5, 2000

Clearly, a supervisory employee is not an “employer” under Lissau . B. … Upon the moving party’s meeting that burden, the nonmoving party has the burden of persuasion to establish that there is a genuine issue for trial.

Benham v. City of Charlotte

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Mar 1, 2022

The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that the Amended Complaint clearly pleads facial challenges in the alternative. … Ala. 2021) (rejecting vagueness challenge to a stay-at-home order in qualified immunity analysis).

LOCAL 2-1971 OF PACE INTERNATIONAL UNION v. Cooper

364 F. Supp. 2d 546 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Mar 24, 2005

Puri has moved for summary judgment arguing that under the WARN Act, an individual does not qualify as an employer and the alter ego theory does not apply to him. … The date stated on the transcript is 2001; however, that is clearly an error.

Scott v. Harven A. Crouse Detention Center

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 31, 2022

and identify and dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … Rather, to establish liability under § 1983, a plaintiff must show that the defendant “acted personally” to cause the alleged violation. See Vinnedge v. Gibbs, 550 F.2d 926, 928 (4th Cir. 1977) (citation omitted).