Case law

Turner v. Blackburn

389 F. Supp. 1250 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Feb 12, 1975

For the plaintiff to invoke the Fourteenth Amendment here she must establish that her rights have been impaired by the State of North Carolina. … While the principle that private action is immune from the restrictions of the Fourteenth Amendment is well established and easily stated, the question whether particular conduct is `private,' on the one hand, or `state action

Rehberg v. Flowers Baking Co. of Jamestown, LLC

162 F. Supp. 3d 490 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Feb 16, 2016

Plaintiffs argue that any sales made to their customers are incidental to their other responsibilities and do not qualify as a “primary duty.” … Code § 21-5-10)), it clearly provided that a release of claims entered in exchange for less than what an employee is owed is unenforceable.

We CBD, LLC v. The United States of America

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

This relinquishment does not qualify as a reason by which a claim under the APA could be made successfully. See Morales, 2003 WL 21692752, at *4. … Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to establish Defendants have waived sovereign immunity, and the Court must GRANT Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. ii.

Azie v. BellSouth Advertising & Publishing Corp.

86 F. Supp. 2d 552 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Mar 8, 2000

In the Memorandum and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge clearly noted that Plaintiff had failed to create an evidentiary record on her behalf. Memorandum & Recommendation, at 2 n. 1. … In addition, Plaintiff's attempt to establish a prima facie case has numerous other shortcomings which the Court finds it unnecessary to pursue.

In re Southeast Hotel Properties Ltd. Partnership Investor Litigation

151 F.R.D. 597 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Oct 26, 1993

Clearly, the federal securities claims alleged by the plaintiffs contain elements which are common to the class. … These common questions of fact presented by the plaintiffs clearly predominate. E.

Hazel v. Medical Action Industries, Inc.

216 F. Supp. 2d 541 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 16, 2002

In order to establish a prima facie claim under Section 1981, plaintiff must present evidence on which he could prevail on each of the following elements: (1) that he is a member of a protected class; (2) he was qualified … “Plaintiffs clearly allege a common law claim for wrongful discharge in violation of state public policy as stated in the EEPA”. In Hughes v.

LaBreche v. Chambers

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

It is well established that judges, in exercising the authority vested in them, are absolutely immune from civil lawsuits for money damages. Dean v. Shirer, 547 F.2d 227, 231 (4th Cir. 1976). … Allegations lacking even a modicum of factual specificity cannot establish plausibility.

Griffin v. Maximus Inc.

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Nov 15, 2022

The 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. Neitzke v. … Failure to Hire To establish a case for discriminatory failure to hire, a plaintiff must show that: (1) he belonged to a protected class; (2) he applied for, and was

North State Law Enforcement Officers Ass'n v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department

862 F. Supp. 1445 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 16, 1994

When the remedy takes the form of numerical goals or quotas, they must be waivable if qualified minority applicants are scarce, and such goals must bear a reasonable relationship to minority percentages in the relevant qualified … [I]n Richmond ... the enactment of a set-aside clearly and directly [is] beneficial to the dominant political group, which happens also to be the dominant racial group.

Moore v. Cleveland County Sheriff Office

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jun 11, 2024

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 … Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 280 (1977) (Eleventh Amendment immunity “does not extend to counties or similar municipal corporations.”).

Harris v. Riddle

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jan 8, 2020

Qualified immunity shields “government officials performing discretionary functions … from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … Defendants, therefore, are entitled to qualified immunity if either their conduct did not violate any constitutional rights, or the right was not clearly established. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009).

Chan v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Services

141 F. Supp. 3d 461 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Oct 23, 2015

Review of an 1-130 Petition under the AWA therefore involves two determinations: 1) whether the petitioner has been convicted of a, qualifying crime and, 2) whether the petitioner has proven that he poses no risk to the alien … However, USCIS has posited via guidance memoran-da that a petitioner must provide evidence that establishes “beyond, a reasonable doubt” that he or she poses no such risk.

Dade v. Carlineo

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Mar 18, 2024

Defendant argues that summary judgment should be granted because Defendant did not use excessive force on Plaintiff and because qualified immunity bars Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant. [Doc. 41]. … Because the forecast of evidence does not support that a constitutional right was violated, Defendant would also be protected by qualified immunity. See E.W. ex rel. T.W. v.

Snipes v. United States

711 F. Supp. 827 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Feb 7, 1989

This establishes an objective test. … “The plaintiff must establish the applicable standard of care required.... In most cases, the standard of care must be established with expert testimony by other practitioners in the same field....

Ragin v. Lockwood

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jun 26, 2024

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. … 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.

United States v. Lopez

84 F. Supp. 3d 482 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Feb 3, 2015

Further, such waiver clearly informs defendant of the consequences of such waiver, which are removal without an opportunity to seek review of such removal. … Thus, a conviction under N.C.Gen.Stat. § 14-34.1(a) for “Discharging a Weapon in Occupied Property” clearly qualifies under Title 8 as a crime of violence because it is patently within the broader definition of “crime of

Woods v. Mann+Hummel Filtration Technology US LLC

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 7, 2019

To establish a prima facie case related to a job transfer or promotion, a plaintiff must show (1) that he belongs to a protected class; (2) that he applied for the position at issue; (3) that he was qualified for that job … Woods argues that he had more “seniority” than Hartness but does not otherwise suggest that he was clearly more qualified for the position.

Nations v. United States

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Feb 15, 2024

While the United States is generally immune from suit, see United States v. … App. 651, 653, 446 S.E.2d 145, 147 (1994) (“[P]laintiff’s immediate supervisor . . . qualifies as a ‘co-employee[.]’”).

Wilkinson v. United States

724 F. Supp. 1200 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Nov 14, 1989

Webster's defines the term "explicitly" as clearly and openly stated or defined. Id. at 333. Webster's defines the term "provided" as supplied. Id. at 804. … Under section 1446(a), it is necessary only "that the grounds for removal be stated in terms borrowed from the jurisdictional pleading requirement established in civil rule 8(a)." H.R.Rep.

Nance v. Union Carbide Corp., Consumer Products Division

397 F. Supp. 436 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Apr 28, 1975

At no time during plaintiff’s qualifying period did her foreman or supervisor advise her that she was not making sufficient progress or that her reject rate was higher than the established standards, even though both her … Where employment discrimination has been clearly demonstrated, employees who have been victims of that discrimination must be compensated if economic loss can be established. Johnson v.