Case law

Moore v. Murray

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jan 4, 2023

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. … 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

Hovis v. Wilson

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jul 3, 2024

Wolfish, “the Supreme Court established an analytical framework for determining the reasonableness of a sexually intrusive search.” Amachi, 237 F.3d at 361 (citing 441 U.S. 520, 559, 99 S.Ct. 1861 (1979)). … Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 280 (1977) (Eleventh Amendment immunity “does not extend to counties or similar municipal corporations.”).

Luckey v. Jenkins

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

established law,” and that it promotes its policy by not reprimanding its officers. … 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

Streeter v. Harris

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Nov 9, 2022

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 … 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

Newell v. Hooks

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Nov 14, 2019

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 scenarios.

Player v. Cathey

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 22, 2022

He also alleges that he “established a claim of negligence.” [Doc. 1 at 3, 6]. For injuries, Plaintiff claims he suffered physical injury. [Id. at 7]. … Here, Plaintiff clearly and affirmatively alleges that he did not exhaust his administrative remedies before filing his Complaint.

Christian Science Board of Directors of the First Church of Christ, Scientist v. Robinson

123 F. Supp. 2d 965 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Oct 4, 2000

The fact that Nolan criticizes the Plaintiffs does not provide immunity. Id. … Clearly, Plaintiffs were injured by the use of those infringing marks in North Carolina.

Nichols v. Gamewell

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jan 9, 2020

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 … “To establish that a health care provider’s actions constitute deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, the treatment must be so grossly incompetent, inadequate, or excessive as to shock the conscience or to

Patton v. Shields

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Dec 20, 2021

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 a subjective component–that the prison official acted with a sufficiently

LaKemper v. Honeycutt

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Feb 9, 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 … Retaliation An inmate has a clearly established First Amendment right to be free from retaliation for filing grievances. See Booker v. S.C.

Trent v. Baers

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Mar 18, 2022

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

Jones v. Epley

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

This is clearly insufficient to support an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Defendant Epley. … Retaliation An inmate has a clearly established First Amendment right to be free from retaliation for filing lawsuits. See Booker v. S.C.

Sisk v. Holden

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 20, 2019

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 … The Plaintiff, however, has failed to adequately or clearly state what relief he is seeking.

Singleton v. Buncombe County Sheriff's Department

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Oct 2, 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. §

Fuller v. Ishee

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

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune to such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. … As a pro se prisoner, he is not qualified to do so. See Myers v. Loudoun Cnty. Pub.

Barbee v. Isothermal Community College

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

The Plaintiff’s forecast of evidence clearly shows that his employer was Defendant ICC. … An employee does not have immunity to threaten his boss, regardless of the employee’s age. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s forecast of evidence is insufficient to establish a prima facie case under the ADEA.

Cox v. Mecklenburg County Jail

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jul 12, 2019

Plaintiff alleges that his laboratory results clearly demonstrate serious, adverse and measurable health consequences due to the multiple lapses in medication. [Id. at 3-4]. … “To establish that a health care provider’s actions constitute deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, the treatment must be so grossly incompetent, inadequate, or excessive as to shock the conscience or to be

Williams v. Iredell County Detention Center

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

[See Doc. 18 at 4-5 (on initial review of the Amended Complaint, dismissing claims against Iredell County judges and prosecutors on immunity grounds)]; see also Davis v. … Goord, 320 F.3d 346, 351 (2d Cir. 2003) (“an isolated incident of mail tampering is usually insufficient to establish a constitutional violation”).

Judd v. Watkins

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Oct 22, 2019

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. … 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.

Building Graphics, Inc. v. Lennar Corp.

866 F. Supp. 2d 530 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Sep 30, 2011

The matter of access in Bonner , an inapposite case, was clearly established as the plaintiff directly provided its copyright-protected work to defendant on a previous occasion. … Regardless, where a defendant's work is based upon work furnished by another, “the defendant’s ignorance that such third party has wrongfully copied from plaintiff will not create any immunity.” 4 Melville B.