Case law

Volvo Trademark Holding Aktiebolaget v. CLM EQUIP. COMPANY, INC.

236 F. Supp. 2d 536 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Dec 13, 2002

To facilitate achieving these goals, one entity needs to have full authority to manage, negotiate, amend, terminate, and establish distributor relationships. … Clearly, any action pursuant to the Arkansas Franchise Practices Act must by definition arise out of the contract.

Darity v. United States

124 F. Supp. 2d 355 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Dec 4, 2000

Clearly, the Court itself considers the Apprendi rule of fundamental constitutional import, resonating its previous decision in Sullivan v. … In Ap-prendi, the Court clearly ruled that every element of a crime must be submitted to a jury.

Viva Healthcare Packaging USA Inc. v. CTL Packaging USA Inc.

197 F. Supp. 3d 837 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jul 12, 2016

They also note that Defendants fail to point out how exactly he fails to qualify as an expert under the standards articulated in Fed. R. Ev. 702. … Additionally, for a non-moving party to establish a genuine dispute of material fact as to “no anticipation,” the non-moving party “is required to do more than establish that the experts disagree.”

Lineberger v. Price

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Apr 26, 2021

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 … To establish a violation of the Eighth Amendment, an inmate must allege (1) a “sufficiently serious” deprivation under an objective standard and (2) that prison officials acted with “deliberate indifference” to the inmate

Blake v. N.C. Dept of Public Safety / Mountain View CI

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · May 26, 2021

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

Pettis v. Jones

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Nov 21, 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 … Rather, to establish liability under § 1983, a plaintiff must show that the defendant “acted personally” to cause the alleged violation. See Vinnedge v. Gibbs, 550 F.2d 926, 928 (4th Cir. 1977) (citation omitted).

Hunter v. McFadden

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

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. … Rather, to establish liability under § 1983, a plaintiff must show that the defendant “acted personally” to cause the alleged violation. See Vinnedge v. Gibbs, 550 F.2d 926, 928 (4th Cir. 1977) (citation omitted).

Raybon v. Williamson

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Mar 10, 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. … Bare or conclusory assertions of retaliation are insufficient to establish a retaliation claim. Adams v. Rice, 40 F.3d 72, 74 (4th Cir. 1994).

Griffin v. Dove

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jan 25, 2021

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 … “The objective component asks whether the force applied was sufficiently serious to establish a cause of action.” Id.

Givens v. Moore

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Oct 27, 2021

Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988) (establishing the prison mailbox rule); Lewis v. … The doctrine operates to “limit tort liability, even when the State has waived its sovereign immunity.” Myers, 360 N.C. at 465, 628 S.E.2d at 766.

Luckey v. Jenkins

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Sep 6, 2022

established law,” and that it promotes its policy by not reprimanding its officers. … The Fourth Circuit has “rarely, if ever, found that a plaintiff has set forth sufficient facts to establish a section 1985 conspiracy.” Simmons, 47 F.3d at 1377.

Wright v. Hamilton

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Dec 7, 2020

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 the Complaint raises an indisputably meritless legal theory or is founded upon clearly baseless factual contentions, such as fantastic or delusional

Grimes v. Call

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

Retaliation for Filing Grievances An inmate has a clearly established First Amendment right to be free from retaliation for filing lawsuits. See Booker v. S.C. … More, bare or conclusory assertions of retaliation are insufficient to establish a retaliation claim. Id., 40 F.3d at 74.

Rivers v. United States

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Sep 4, 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 … 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.

Dennis v. Torres

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jun 24, 2022

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

United States v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority

248 F. Supp. 3d 720 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Mar 30, 2017

In short, under clearly established Fourth Circuit precedent, Plaintiffs have alleged direct evidence of market harm with enough specificity that their claim for a violation of 16 U.S.C. § 1 is plausible. … By the Supreme Court’s definition, this clearly demonstrates CHS’s market power.

King-El v. Wilson

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Oct 26, 2020

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 doing so, the plaintiff must set forth “specific, non-conclusory factual allegations that establish an improper [discriminatory] motive.” Williams v.

Caldwell v. Carroll

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · May 2, 2024

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

Peterson v. West

122 F. Supp. 2d 649 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Oct 27, 2000

And, although he was represented by counsel, Plaintiff clearly knew how to protect his rights. This is not an occasion appropriate for equitable tolling. … If not insubordinate, such a comment was clearly less than tactful.

Morris v. McFadden

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jan 10, 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 … Individual Capacity To establish liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must show that the defendants “acted personally” to cause the alleged violation.