Case law

McAbee v. Marlow

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 9, 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 … “The Constitution creates no entitlement to grievance procedures or access to any such procedure voluntarily established by a state.” Adams v. Rice, 40 F.3d 72, 75 (4th Cir. 1994).

Carter v. Tapp

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

Plaintiff has failed to establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits or that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief. … 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.

Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education

318 F. Supp. 786 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 3, 1970

City Coach has indicated a capacity to transport between 6,000 and 7,000 pupils daily if they get fares and routes satisfactorily established. 9. … The % Minority Board Plan.— This plan was presented intelligently and clearly by Dr. Carlton Watkins, its chief drafter, one of a % minority of the Board.

Ellerbe v. Ishee

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Apr 25, 2023

In its frivolity review, a court must determine whether a complaint raises an indisputably meritless legal theory or is founded upon clearly 4 The Plaintiff’s claims for declaratory and injunctive relief … As a pro se prisoner, he is not qualified to do so. See Myers v. Loudoun Cnty. Pub.

Anderson v. Sara Lee Corp.

348 F. Supp. 2d 618 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Dec 17, 2004

It is well-established that a court reviewing the denial of disability benefits under ERISA initially must decide whether a benefit plan’s language grants the administrator or fiduciary discretion to determine the claimant … Id., at *6 (“Just as clearly, this evidence would not require [Defendants] to award benefits if it had ‘substantial evidence’ that [Plaintiff] could perform sedentary work.”); Reagan, supra (employee’s admission that he worked

Hoots v. Miller

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

The Parratt-Hudson doctrine does not apply, however, to deprivations that are a “result of some established state procedure.” Logan v. … 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.

Mayfield v. National Ass'n for Stock Car Auto Racing, Inc.

713 F. Supp. 2d 527 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · May 18, 2010

This release clearly waives Plaintiffs’ right to sue for a claim “caused by negligence or otherwise.” By Plaintiffs’ own admission, the term “otherwise” includes willful and grossly negligent conduct. … Plaintiffs Fail to State a Claim for Negligence Plaintiffs clearly released Defendants from any negligence claim arising out of the application of the Policy.

Gaston v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc.

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · May 24, 2021

immunity and otherwise had an express permissible purpose under the DPPA. … Finally, the Court decided that Defendants were not entitled to summary judgment because the Court found they were liable for injunctive relief as discussed above and did not have immunity, qualified or otherwise, based

Hines v. United States

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Apr 17, 2024

Petitioner also questioned why he did not qualify for the safety valve. [Id. at 19-20]. The probation officer and the Court explained that Petitioner did not qualify because he had a firearm. [Id.]. … Thus, it was not “clearly improbable” that the firearm he fired at his home on December 24, 2019, was not possessed in connection with the drug conspiracy.

Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc. v. United States Atomic Energy Commission

431 F. Supp. 203 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Mar 31, 1977

It is important that we have a number of qualified suppliers to provide competition for the thousands of components required to build the plant. … Power companies don’t have governmental or charitable immunity.

Powell v. Lee

282 F. Supp. 2d 355 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Sep 11, 2003

Moreover, testimony presented during the guilt phase of the trial from Petitioner’s companions on the evening of the murder clearly established the use of both cocaine and alcohol in the hours preceding the crime. … The state court did not make an unreasonable application of clearly established law; the court applied the correct legal standards; and the decision was based on a reasonable determination of the facts adduced.

Lowery v. McDowell County Superior Court

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Oct 13, 2020

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 … In its frivolity review, the 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

McClary v. Butler

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

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

Howard v. McFadden

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Mar 8, 2024

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. … The Plaintiff has failed to state a plausible claim against Sheriff McFadden.2 As the Plaintiff was previously informed in Case No. -576, to establish individual liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must show

Vanwyk Textile Systems, B v. v. Zimmer MacHinery America, Inc.

994 F. Supp. 350 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Dec 4, 1997

Therefore, Vanwyk did not establish secondary meaning, its mark does not qualify for federal trademark protection, and it has - no Lanham Act recourse. … Willfulness in violating the law may qualify the case as exceptional. Id.

Woods v. Department of Public Safety

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jun 17, 2019

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

Hudson v. Department of Adult Correction

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jan 24, 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 scenarios. … 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 v. Wilson

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · May 15, 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.

Anderson v. Bowman

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 15, 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 … “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 2 Because the Plaintiff

Chambers v. Ishee

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jul 31, 2024

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune to such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. … Retaliation An inmate has a clearly established First Amendment right to be free from retaliation for filing lawsuits. See Booker v. S.C.