Case law

Moore v. Lassiter

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jun 7, 2021

In its frivolity review, the 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 … Allegations of inadvertent failure to provide adequate medical care or of negligent diagnosis fail to establish the requisite state of mind. Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 297 (1991).

Mom N Pops, Inc. v. City of Charlotte

979 F. Supp. 372 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 22, 1997

None of the circumstances qualifying as an established exception to the doctrine of prior restraint was present. ... … Id. at 1581 (“Clearly, if the regulating authority cannot determine the establishments which are subject to its authority, the establishments themselves cannot be expected to determine whether they need to be licensed or

Maye v. Mckinney

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

In its frivolity review, a 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 … As a pro se inmate, the Plaintiff is not qualified to assert a claim on behalf of others. See Myers v. Loudoun Cnty. Pub.

Murdock v. Gamewell

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 6, 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 … 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.)

Barnette v. Eady-Williams

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Sep 25, 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 … Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 273 (1993) (prosecutorial immunity only applies to the extent that prosecutors serve as advocates for the State).

Mallatere v. Town of Boone

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jun 3, 2019

Rather, the policy maker must have “final authority to establish municipal policy with respect to the action ordered.” Id. … The doctrine of governmental immunity holds that municipalities are immune from suit based upon the torts of its employees in the exercise of governmental functions absent waiver of immunity. Herndon v.

Hunter v. Buchholtz

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Nov 9, 2023

dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint 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 … First Amendment An inmate has a clearly established First Amendment right to be free from retaliation for filing lawsuits. See Booker v. S.C.

Asheville Building Associates v. Carlyle Real Estate Ltd. Partnership

93 B.R. 920 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Sep 29, 1988

As of August 17, 1988, ABA’s only efforts to sell the Property involved inquiries about a plan to auction the Property via satellite to one hundred and fifty thousand potential pre-qualified buyers situated in such exotic … Therefore, this Court has carefully reviewed the record and concludes that Judge Hodges’ findings of fact are not clearly erroneous.

O'CONNOR v. Consolidated Coin Caterers Corp.

829 F. Supp. 155 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jul 27, 1993

This scheme of proof favors the plaintiff initially by allowing him to rather easily establish a presumption of discrimination that, once established, compels the defendant-employer to demonstrate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory … Clearly, Williams’ comment did not have any nexus to the decision to terminate O’Connor. O’Connor has also proffered indirect evidence of discriminatory intent.

Hunter v. Municipality of Mecklenburg County

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Mar 7, 2022

Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988) (establishing the prisoner mailbox rule); Lewis v. … 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

Green v. McFadden

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Mar 16, 2021

Robert Bell is immune from suit under the doctrine of judicial immunity. See Stump v. … Rather, to establish liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must show that the defendant “acted personally” to cause the alleged violation. See Vinnedge v.

Greene v. Dialysis Clinic, Inc.

159 F. Supp. 2d 228 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jun 13, 2001

Unsupported allegations “do not confer talismanic immunity from Rule 56.” Ross v. Communications Satellite Corp., 759 F.2d 355, at 365 (4th Cir.1985). … Finding that plaintiff has failed to establish a causal connection between the first two elements, the undersigned will recommend that summary judgment be granted in favor of defendant, inasmuch as plaintiff has not established

Hubbard v. Wallenstein

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 16, 2024

Plaintiff barely attempts to establish personal jurisdiction over any of the Defendants. (Am. Compl., Doc. No. 12). … Indeed, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint falls short of alleging sufficient contacts necessary to establish jurisdiction.

Bowens v. Ishee

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Sep 28, 2022

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. … Baltimore Cnty., Md., 913 F.2d 113, 120 (4th Cir. 1990) (“A serious psychological impairment can qualify as [a serious] medical need.”).

Guthrie v. Blue Ridge Savings Bank

114 F. Supp. 2d 431 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 4, 2000

If there existed different treatment, it clearly was that plaintiff received more favorable and lenient treatment than her male supervisor. … The court finds that plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case of gender discrimination and that judgment must be entered for the defendant.

Jones v. DOLE FOOD CO., INC.

827 F. Supp. 2d 532 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Oct 27, 2011

She repeatedly reminded plaintiff that Dole policy clearly prohibited supervisors from dating employees in the same department. Id. ¶ 8. … Unsupported allegations “do not confer talismanic immunity from Rule 56.” Ross v. Communications Satellite Corp., 759 F.2d 355, at 365 (4th Cir.1985), overruled on other grounds, Price Waterhouse v.

Hunter v. NC DPS

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

In its frivolity review, a court must determine whether the Amended Complaint raises an indisputably meritless legal theory or is founded upon clearly baseless factual contentions, such as fantastic or delusional … Dist. of Columbia, 138 S.Ct. 594, 595 (2018) (when a district court dismisses all claims independently qualifying for the exercise of federal jurisdiction, it “ordinarily dismiss[es] all related state claims.”); see 28

District Memorial Hospital of Southwestern North Carolina, Inc. v. Thompson

261 F. Supp. 2d 378 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Feb 4, 2003

The second fraction is called the “Medicaid proxy,” and counts patients who are not entitled to Medicare benefits but who qualify for Medicaid. … In this case, it is undisputed that Plaintiff qualifies as a subsection (d) hospital.

Feaster v. Watts

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Nov 4, 2020

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 … Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 494 (1974) (“Abstract injury is not enough” to establish that a case or controversy exists); Younger v.

Godbold v. Cherokee County

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Feb 3, 2023

Counsel further noted the existence of various defenses that could be asserted by the Defendants at trial, 7 including the defenses of qualified immunity … , sovereign immunity, and public official immunity.