Case law

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

Carmichael v. Murphy

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jul 24, 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 … 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

Hendon v. Hill

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

determine whether it is subject to dismissal on the grounds that it is “(i) frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune … 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.

Sanders v. Bailey

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jan 30, 2023

at 17; the funeral expenses incurred by the Estate [id. at 19]; documents related to the Structured Settlement Proposals for M.S. and C.S., including the terms and conditions of the annuity payments, and the establishment … Among other defenses, the Defendants asserted the defense of qualified immunity, and while Plaintiff’s counsel did not expect all the Defendants to prevail on the defense of qualified immunity, some probably

Lowery v. Shook

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

immunity. … Moreover, because the forecast of evidence does not support that Defendants McGrady, Cook, or Miller, violated a constitutional right, these Defendant would also be protected by qualified immunity.

Moore v. Slagle

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Apr 2, 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 scenarios. … No. 13), Plaintiff asks the Court to qualify the action as a class action.

B-21 Wines, Inc. v. Guy

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 19, 2020

To invoke federal jurisdiction, a plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the Article III standing. Beck v. … Therefore, Attorney General Stein does not fall into the Ex parte Young exception and retains his 11th Amendment immunity.

Wright v. United States

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

The United States has not waived its sovereign immunity for constitutional tort suits, such as the one here. Id. … To obtain a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must establish (1) that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) that the balance

Jones v. McComas

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Oct 31, 2023

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.

Gregory v. Moore

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Dec 23, 2024

determine whether it is subject to dismissal on the grounds that it is “(i) frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against 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 a subjective component-—that the prison official acted with a sufficiently

Johnson v. Honeywell International Inc.

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Feb 26, 2025

Plaintiff objects on the ground that the M&R erred in conferring on employees who lodge complaints of sexual harassment an absolute immunity from tortious interference claims. (Doc. No. 28 at 18). … The M&R correctly recognized that the privilege available to non-outside employees is a qualified privilege. (Doc. No. 27 at 10).

Brown v. Lambert

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 21, 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 … Moreover, bare or conclusory assertions of retaliation are insufficient to establish a retaliation claim. Id., 40 F.3d at 74.

Strickland v. United States of America

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Dec 30, 2020

SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY Absent a waiver, sovereign immunity shields from suit not only the United States but also its “agencies,” FDIC v. … That statute “merely establishes a subject matter that is within the competence of federal courts to entertain.” Id.

Dalton v. Miller

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Dec 21, 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 … 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.”); 28 U.S.C. §

Shook v. McNally

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 5, 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 … 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.

Nance v. Simmerer

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jan 13, 2023

a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see 28 U.S.C. … 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.

United Food & Commercial Workers Local 204 v. Harris-Teeter Super Markets, Inc.

716 F. Supp. 1561 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jul 19, 1989

There is nothing in the record to establish that all of the Plan’s participants — unionized and non-unionized — will be better off now that the unionized employees are included in the Plan. … Neither side had a clearly superior legal position on the preliminary questions.

Johnson v. Tillman

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 25, 2025

If a person is arrested when no reasonable officer could believe, in light of the contours of the offense at issue, that probable cause exists to arrest that person, a violation of a clearly established Fourth Amendment … As the first element above suggests, the Plaintiff must also establish all of the elements of negligence to satisfy the first element of an NIED claim.

Rivers v. Iredell County

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 20, 2024

Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 280 (1977) (Eleventh Amendment immunity “does not extend to counties or similar municipal corporations.”). … Therefore, at this stage, the Plaintiff has failed to meet any of the requirements for establishing exceptional circumstances necessitating the appointment of counsel. V.

Teague v. Bakker

213 F. Supp. 2d 571 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jul 16, 2002

Section 1961 only applies to judgments and the order in this case does not qualify as a judgment. Hull v. … Assuming arguendo that Judge McMillan’s Memorandum and Order does qualify as a final judgment, counsel still do not avail.