Case law

Evans v. Slagle

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · May 26, 2023

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. … An inmate has a clearly established First Amendment right to be free from retaliation for filing lawsuits. See Booker v. S.C. Dep’t of Corrs., 855 F.3d 533, 540 (4th Cir. 2017); Thompson v.

Cannady v. Schofield

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Sep 29, 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 scenarios. … Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 280 (1977) (Eleventh Amendment immunity “does not extend to counties or similar municipal corporations.”).

Crabill v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education

708 F. Supp. 2d 542 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Apr 14, 2010

This testimony establishes that the Plaintiff was extremely diligent in checking her mail for any correspondence from the EEOC. … In order to establish a claim for failure to provide reasonable accommodation, the Plaintiff must show (1) that she is a “qualified individual with a disability” within the meaning of the ADA; (2) that her employer had notice

Pittman v. Sheriff of Gaston County

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Sep 29, 2025

The burden is on the “next friend” clearly to establish the propriety of his status and thereby justify the jurisdiction of the court. Whitmore, 495 U.S. … As mandated by the Supreme Court, “[t]he burden is on the ‘next friend’ clearly to establish the propriety of [her] status and thereby justify the jurisdiction of the court.”

Hefner v. Jones

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

Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 280 (1977) (Eleventh Amendment immunity “does not extend to counties or similar municipal corporations.”). … He has failed to allege any facts that would plausibly establish that his alleged injury was the result of any Defendant’s deficient policy or custom, rather than as a result of an isolated officer action.

Gallardo v. Iredell County Courts

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

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 prosecute a class action or assert a claim on behalf of others. See Myers v. Loudoun Cnty. Pub.

Barr v. North Carolina Department of Public Safety

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 25, 2020

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 decisions of the North Carolina Industrial Commission “qualify as judicial actions as opposed to administrative or ministerial processes,” its decisions fall within the scope of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.

Parsons v. Beaver

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Oct 29, 2019

Because Plaintiff has sufficiently stated a claim for a violation of a constitutional right and because the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct, Defendant Jolley is not entitled … to qualified immunity.

Hensley v. Suttles

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jun 24, 2019

After the Defendants’ motion for qualified immunity was denied [see Doc. 57], this case proceeded to a jury trial. … The Plaintiffs appear to argue in their brief that it is established that the gun was pointed down. However, the Plaintiffs offered no evidence at trial to support such a finding.

Lynch v. Wiggins

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jun 8, 2021

One means of establishing unlawfulness is by showing that a warrantless arrest was made without probable cause. Id. … Whitney é & yf United States District Judge * ey 3 It is likewise unnecessary to set forth an analysis of the arguments concerning Qualified Immunity given this Court

Givens Bey v. Murray

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 21, 2019

Finally, the Court notes that Defendants also raise qualified immunity as a defense. … The Court, therefore, finds that Defendant Hamilton is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Stokes v. Southeast Hotel Properties, Ltd.

877 F. Supp. 986 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Dec 21, 1994

The Court’s use of the word “qualify” suggests that the district court has the power to modify the plaintiffs choice of venue based upon the existence of the bankruptcy proceeding. … The decision where a personal injury claim will be adjudicated is clearly reserved for attention of the district court.

Moore v. American Barmag Corp.

710 F. Supp. 1050 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Mar 7, 1989

Schnaidt does not clearly establish that the actions taken by Schnaidt are only within the scope of allowed activities for a corporate officer, particularly where the acts of inducing textile manufactures to manufacture in … Clearly, Plaintiff is entitled to proceed with his evidence on this claim and Defendants’ Motion will therefore be DENIED.

Miller v. McFadden

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

claims or 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 … 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

Hunter v. Skipper

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Nov 14, 2022

March 18, 2021) (finding that probable cause to support an arrest was established by circumstantial evidence). … When a district court dismisses all claims independently qualifying for the exercise of federal jurisdiction, it “ordinarily dismiss[es] all related state claims.” Artis v.

Suhre v. Haywood County, NC

55 F. Supp. 2d 384 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Apr 2, 1999

The remarks presented at the dedication of the Haywood County Courthouse clearly establish that the historical component of the plaques within the display was to honor and respect the development of the judicial system. … Thus, the Defendant clearly had a secular purpose when the display was erected.

Llera v. SECURITY CREDIT SYSTEMS, INC.

93 F. Supp. 2d 674 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Feb 23, 2000

Prevailing Party To qualify as a prevailing party under § 75-16.1, Plaintiff must prove: (1) an actual violation of § 75-1.1; and (2) that she suffered an actual injury as a result of the violation. … This more rigorous requirement under § 75-16.1 is clearly valid. The “American rule” rejects any claim of right to an award of attorney’s fees.

Grace v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc.

845 F. Supp. 2d 664 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Feb 27, 2012

Section 541.1(f) states clearly, however, that an employee who is compensated for her services on a salary basis of at least $250 per week and who satisfies the tests promulgated by sections 541.1(a)-(b) shall be deemed to … The current regulations state that a “manager in a retail establishment” can "supervise employees and serve customers at the same time without losing the exemption.” 29 C.F.R. § 541.106 (b) (emphasis added).

Mitchell v. Kay

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

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 … To establish an Eighth Amendment claim, an inmate must satisfy both an objective component— that the harm inflicted was sufficiently serious—and subjective component— that the prison official acted with a

Moore v. Inmont Corp.

608 F. Supp. 919 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Apr 4, 1985

Further, there was a no smoking sign at the entry which sign clearly would put anyone on notice not to smoke when entering the building. … Sweeney, 439 U.S. 24 , 99 S.Ct. 295 , 58 L.Ed.2d 216 (1978). (4) To establish a prima facie case of discriminatory discharge the Plaintiff must show that: (1) he is a member of *927 a protected class; (2) he was qualified