Case law

Carmichael v. Murphy

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Mar 17, 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 … To establish the imposition of cruel and unusual punishment, a prisoner must prove two elements: (1) “the deprivation of [a] basic human need was objectively sufficiently serious,” and (2) “subjectively

Riddle

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jun 9, 2026

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 … of Columbia, 583 U.S. 71, 74 (2018) (when a district court dismisses all claims independently qualifying for the exercise of federal jurisdiction, it “ordinarily dismiss[es] as well all related state claims.”); 28 U.S.C

The Boeing Company v. Ten Oaks Management, LLC

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

As non-outsiders maintain a legitimate business interest in the matter, they “often enjoy qualified immunity from liability for inducing their corporation or other entity to breach its contract.” Bloch v. … If Defendants are instead classified as non-outsiders, then their qualified immunity “is lost if exercised for motives other than reasonable, good faith attempts to protect the non-outsider’s interests in the contract interfered

Taylor v. Hill

420 F. Supp. 1020 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jul 6, 1976

as soon as the fact of pregnancy had been medically established. … As of this same date, the qualified aged recipients of these non-SSI payments were 73.5 percent white; qualified disabled recipients, 66.2 percent white; AFDC recipients, 25.9 percent white. 15.

Elmore v. Mecklenburg County Courthouse

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

Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 273 (1993) (immunity applies to the extent that prosecutors serve as advocates for the State). … 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.

Stegall v. Sullivan

725 F. Supp. 879 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Oct 17, 1989

Thus, the Secretary clearly never immediately denies disability claims after determining that a claimant fails to qualify as disabled by failing to have an impairment that meets the Listings. See id.; see also R. … See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (d), (e) (1988) (establishing procedure for determining claimant’s residual functional capacity).

Perez v. Huneycutt

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 16, 2022

“A serious psychological impairment can qualify as [a serious] medical need.” Buffington v. Baltimore Cnty., Md., 913 F.2d 113, 120 (4th Cir. 1990). … As a pro se inmate, the Plaintiff is not qualified to prosecute a class action or assert a claim on behalf of others. See Myers v. Loudoun Cnty. Pub.

Hardin v. Champion International Corp.

685 F. Supp. 527 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Nov 25, 1987

It was felt that Hardin was not qualified for the position because he lacked education, training and experience in the electrical and instrumentation fields. … His qualifications simply do not measure up to those of Waddell and are clearly insufficient to meet the demands of the position of superintendent of maintenance which Waddell now fills.

Frazier v. Angel Medical Center

308 F. Supp. 2d 671 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Mar 16, 2004

Doctors, nurses, and hospitals all qualify as health care providers. … The Plaintiffs condition was clearly stabilized and Dr. Kaga offered to provide long term treatment.

Chisholm v. United States Postal Service

516 F. Supp. 810 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Oct 3, 1980

This discretion when combined with the rest of the system, as the statistics will clearly show, has been exercised to the detriment of blacks. … The motion is clearly written; it is supported by detailed back-up in the form of affidavits, itemized expenses and theories of recovery.

Wilkerson v. Hester

114 F. Supp. 2d 446 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 30, 2000

Tips may establish probable cause when corroborated by independent police investigation. … Today, the office of sheriff is established by Article VII, Section 2, of the North Carolina Constitution (1970).

Womble

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Mar 18, 2026

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 … some public entity’s services, programs, or activities for which he was otherwise qualified; and (3) such exclusion, denial of benefits, or discrimination was by reason of his disability.)

Jones

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jul 13, 2026

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 … , or activities for which he was otherwise qualified; and (3) such exclusion, denial of benefits, or discrimination was by reason of his disability.

Wilson v. Gaston County

145 F. Supp. 3d 549 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Nov 6, 2015

However, she not established that she suffered an adverse employment action after being reinstated by GEMS. … First, the record clearly demonstrates that Wilson’s supervisors did not issue more warnings to her after she requested leave to have surgery.

Goodson v. Bowen

639 F. Supp. 369 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jun 17, 1986

However, the established onset date must be fixed based on the facts and can never be inconsistent with the medical evidence or record” (emphasis added). … In that situation, the Secretary is clearly not bound by the alleged onset date. Cox v. Secretary, 521 F.Supp. 1295, 1298 (E.D.Pa.1981).

Cincinnati Insurance v. Zurich Insurance

198 F.R.D. 81 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jul 24, 2000

As a result, opinion work product enjoys a nearly absolute immunity and can be discovered only in very rare and extraordinary circumstances. Chaudhry, 174 F.3d at 403 (internal citations omitted) (emphasis added). … Therefore, Zurich clearly cannot establish an exception to work product on the ground of “substantial need and inability to [otherwise] secure” the information. Id. However, that is not the end of the analysis.

Austin v. Continental Casualty Co.

216 F. Supp. 2d 550 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 23, 2002

qualified), and whether the decision makers improperly rejected the opinions of a qualified vocational expert that were supported by objective testing. … The opinion of a treating physician may be disregarded where it is inconsistent with clearly established contemporaneous medical records. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (d)(4).

Ardrey v. United Parcel Service

615 F. Supp. 1250 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 19, 1985

At the completion of the training period the employee is required to meet an established minimal level of competency in order to be qualified (receive seniority) as a preloader. (11) To attain seniority as a preloader the … Neal failed to establish pretext in those reasons. I. SMITH (1) Matthew Smith was hired as a full-time car washer on April 3, 1967. He qualified as a feeder driver in 1970.

Rosado v. Langdon

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · May 8, 2024

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 scenarios. … , or activities for which he was otherwise qualified; and (3) such exclusion, denial of benefits, or discrimination was by reason of his disability.

Gunter v. Doe

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 31, 2020

Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988) (establishing the prisoner mailbox rule); Lewis v. … Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant D’Amico told Plaintiff that he “did not qualify for hearing assistance.”2 [Doc. 1 at 5].