Case law

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.

Kersey v. Catawba Valley Medical Center

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Mar 1, 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 … Moreover, 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.

Riddle

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

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

McLaughlin v. McGee Bros. Co., Inc.

681 F. Supp. 1117 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Mar 11, 1988

Clearly in the case before the Court the children are completely dependent on McGee for their employment. … Evidence to Establish Amount Due.

Floyd v. Thornburg

619 F. Supp. 756 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Oct 4, 1985

Clearly, if given an opportunity no court will equate ‘verbal discourse’ with ‘oral intercourse’ under the statute. … No citizen or member of the community is immune from prosecution, in good faith, for his alleged criminal acts.

Marshall v. North Carolina Department of Public Safety

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Nov 12, 2020

The Eleventh Amendment bars suits directly against a state or its agencies, unless the state has waived its immunity or Congress has exercised its power under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to override that immunity … Plaintiff appears to allege that his property loss resulted from random, unauthorized action rather than an established state procedure.

Yashenko v. Harrah's NC Casino Company, LLC

352 F. Supp. 2d 653 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jan 20, 2005

While in some cases temporal proximity is sufficient to establish pretext, the Court is unpersuaded in the case at bar. … against Indian tribes to dismiss' plaintiffs' Title VII claims, the Court did not address whether the same provisions prohibited plaintiffs’ § 1981 claims because the Court dismissed those claims on the grounds of sovereign immunity

U. T. Inc. v. Brown

457 F. Supp. 163 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 3, 1978

Clearly, if § 160A-175(e) applies in the manner suggested, the ordinance thereby permits un *168 constitutional prior restraints. Cf. Fehlhaber v. North Carolina, 445 F.Supp. at 137 . … It is a cardinal rule of construction that where an excepting clause or restriction is found unconstitutional the substantive provisions it qualifies cannot stand. Davis v.

Henslee v. Slagle

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Oct 3, 2022

As a pro se prisoner, he is not qualified to do so. 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.”).

Thomas v. Elis

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

Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 280 (1977) (Eleventh Amendment immunity “does not extend to counties or similar municipal corporations.”). … A plaintiff can establish the requisite “policy” for Monell liability through a failure to train, if it “reflects a ‘deliberate’ or ‘conscious’ choice” to not do so. City of Canton v.

Haynes v. Quinn

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Nov 27, 2024

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 … Retaliation An inmate has a clearly established First Amendment right to be free from retaliation for filing lawsuits. See Booker v. S.C.

Fuller v. Huneycutt

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · May 11, 2022

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune to such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. … 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.

Reid v. White

703 F. Supp. 428 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Dec 19, 1988

ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States ... to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities … Section 160A-16 of the North Carolina General Statutes clearly states, “All contracts made by or on behalf of a city shall be in writing.” N.C. Gen.Stat. § 160A-16 (1987).

Valdez-Bey v. Smith

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

Moreover, to establish liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff “must affirmatively show that the official charged acted personally in the deprivation of [his] rights.” Williamson v. … In his Complaint, Plaintiff neglects to clearly allege which Defendant is responsible for which conduct.

Greenfield v. Hernandez

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Sep 6, 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). … The Plaintiff has not established any of the elements that would warrant preliminary injunctive relief.

DIST. MEMORIAL HOSP. OF SOUTHWESTERN 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.

Adams v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp.

284 F. Supp. 2d 331 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jul 31, 2003

If a plan does not clearly grant discretion, the standard of review is de novo. Feder v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co., 228 F.3d 518, 524 (4th Cir.2000). … Section 1102(a)(1) of ERISA requires that “Every employee benefit plan shall be established and maintained pursuant to a written instrument.” (emphasis added).

Givens v. Moore

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Dec 1, 2020

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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Anderson's Restaurant of Charlotte, Inc.

666 F. Supp. 821 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 3, 1987

the claimant was qualified and applied for an available job; (3) though qualified, the claimant was rejected; and (4) the employer continued to seek applicants with the claimant’s qualifications. *843 Put another way, the … The Fourth Circuit has consistently held that the claimant’s burden is to establish that he or she applied for an available position, for which he or she was better qualified than the successful candidate. Anderson v.

Conway v. Housing Authority of City of Asheville

239 F. Supp. 2d 593 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Dec 19, 2002

According to the Court, HUD “had no thought that its own supervisory powers or the grievance system that it had established foreclosed resort to the courts by tenants.” Id. … The court found that “Congress clearly intended to require local PHAs to provide an administrative grievance procedure for tenant complaints of adverse PHA action, and nothing in the structure or history of the [Housing]