Case law

Davidson v. Mecklenburg County Sheriffs Dept.

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 29, 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 … Individual Capacity Claim against Defendant McFadden To establish liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must show that the defendants “acted personally” to cause the alleged violation.

Duke Energy Corp. v. United States

49 F. Supp. 2d 837 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jan 15, 1999

In order to qualify for the DRD a corporate taxpayer must own the securities for at least 46 days I.R.C. § 246(c)(1). That 46 day holding period is tolled if the investor is short “substantially identical” securities. … Wooten both described Duke’s expectations clearly and credibly, such that the Court finds that Duke did have an expectation of a pretax return throughout its participation in the 21st program.

Strickland v. Lee

471 F. Supp. 2d 557 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jan 30, 2007

’s application of clearly established federal law was “objectively unreasonable.” 1 Williams, 529 U. … The North Carolina Supreme Court’s decision was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law. See § 2254(d)(1).

Ward v. Cigna Life Ins. Co. of New York

776 F. Supp. 2d 155 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Mar 9, 2011

involving the second appeal should result in a remand for reconsideration. “ ‘[W]here the problem is with the integrity of the plan’s decision-making process, rather than that a claimant was denied benefits to which he was clearly … guidelines and the plaintiff/participant has preserved his objection to the plan administrator’s noncompliance, the proper course of action for the court is remand[J The only exception to that rule would be where the record establishes

Parker v. NC Department of Public Safety

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 11, 2023

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. … Gibbs, 550 F.2d 926, 928 (4th Cir. 1977) (citation omitted) (to establish liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must show that the defendants “acted personally” to cause the alleged violation).

Jackson v. Blue Dolphin Communications of North Carolina, LLC

359 F. Supp. 2d 442 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Oct 22, 2004

Again, this is an inherently ambiguous statement clearly capable of more than one interpretation. … To establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination ... under Title VII, [Plaintiff] must show that: (l)[she] is a member of a protected class; (2)[she] was qualified for [her] job and [her] job performance was satisfactory

Stroud v. Tapp

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Feb 23, 2021

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. § 1915A (requiring frivolity review for prisoners’ civil actions seeking … “The objective component asks whether the force applied was sufficiently serious to establish a cause of action.” Id.

Jones v. United States

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Dec 11, 2020

Jones need not establish cause for failing to raise this issue earlier or prejudice resulting therefrom.” (Doc. No. 7 at 7). … § 846 “would clearly qualify as a career offender offense under the Guidelines provisions and commentaries.”

Wright v. State of North Carolina

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Apr 26, 2023

In denying his post-conviction MAR, the state court noted that the Petitioner “knowingly and voluntarily agreed to the sentence he received through his plea arrangement, which the plea transcript clearly … states,” and that he did not qualify for the sentence that he now contends he should have received.

Southern Power Company v. Cleveland County

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jul 23, 2020

. § 158-7.1(h), and therefore that the County is immune from suit. See Data General Corp. v. County of Durham, 143 N.C. … In short, to deny a motion to amend on futility grounds, the Court must find that the “proposed amendment is clearly insufficient or frivolous on its face.” Johnson v.

Capacchione v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools

57 F. Supp. 2d 228 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Sep 9, 1999

Immunity under the Swann Orders Public officials acting pursuant to court directives are immune from liability for damages in a suit challenging the prescribed conduct. Wolfe v. … Consequently, CMS enjoys immunity from liability for any actions it took consistent with the Court's injunction. This immunity has limits, however.

Crittington v. McFadden

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Nov 22, 2021

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

Pitt v. Fishbach

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jul 15, 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 … 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

Gallagher v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance

171 F. Supp. 2d 594 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Nov 6, 2001

The insuring clause of the instant plan states that in order for the insured to qualify for a monthly benefit, he must “submit[ ] satisfactory proof of Total Disability to us (Reliance).” … Clearly, a physician’s opinion is the best evidence for determining when and if an applicant has crossed the threshold of manageable pain.

Price v. Atrium Health

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · May 15, 2024

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 Fourth Circuit has conditioned liability for private corporations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on the same requirements established for municipal corporations. Rodriguez v.

CSX Transportation, Inc. v. CRH Americas, Inc.

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jul 9, 2025

Culver is qualified to opine on “CSX’s failure to act prudently in light of the federal standard of care established by § 213.239” and his opinion is reliable and relevant, and (3) Robert Gentry is qualified to address … He is plainly qualified to opine on CSX’s putative failure to “act prudently in light of the federal standard of care established by § 213.239,” and he has a sound basis at this point to so opine. [Id. at 16].

Monroe-Williams v. Clawson

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Mar 16, 2022

In its frivolity review, a court must determine whether the a complaint raises an indisputably meritless legal theory or is founded upon clearly baseless factual contentions, such as fantastic or delusional … 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

CHRISTIAN SCI. BD. OF DIRECTORS 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.

Pickens v. Morgan

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Mar 28, 2023

However, their mere compliance with a search warrant fails to establish that they were state actors under § 1983. See, e.g., Mitchell v. St. Elizabeth Hosp., 119 F. … Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s allegation that Defendant Morgan violated Section 15A-248 fails to establish a plausible Fourth Amendment claim.

Orr v. U.S. EPA

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Nov 21, 2022

Any waiver of sovereign immunity must be “construed strictly in favor of the sovereign . . . and not enlarge[d] . . . beyond what the language requires.” U.S. Dep’t of Energy v. … those Notices to establish his purported new “Allegations” in this action.