Malcolm Jones Howard

The case involves petitioner James Novia Farrior's 2011 motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his 2005 guilty plea and sentence for possessing a firearm as a convicted felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The motion challenged whether his prior North Carolina convictions qualified as predicate offenses punishable by more than one year of imprisonment, based on the Fourth Circuit's en banc decision in United States v. Simmons applying the Supreme Court's Carachuri-Rosendo ruling to require an individualized assessment of the maximum sentence the specific offender could have received. The court found the motion timely because the new rule is substantive and retroactive, addressed procedural default by examining actual innocence, and determined that the government's cited prior convictions (two Class G drug offenses) did not qualify as predicates because they occurred after the June 2003 firearm possession date. The court therefore ordered the government to show cause within five days why the judgment should not be vacated and the petitioner released.

criminal lawgunsprocedure

This case involves claims by former H-2B visa workers, including plaintiff Gaxiola, against a North Carolina seafood processing company for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and North Carolina Wage and Hour Act (NCWHA). The workers alleged they were not paid the required minimum wage due to a piece-rate pay system and unauthorized deductions from their wages for transportation, visa, and border crossing expenses. The court addressed cross-motions for partial summary judgment and a motion for class certification under Rule 23 for the NCWHA claims. It granted class certification for the NCWHA claims, found defendants liable on the FLSA and NCWHA claims related to minimum wage and improper deductions based on the terms of the labor certifications and applicable regulations, and scheduled a trial on damages while directing the parties to prepare class notices.

labor & employmentimmigration

This case is a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by Abner Ray Nicholson, who was convicted in North Carolina state court of two counts of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for fatally shooting his wife and a police chief responding to a domestic dispute. Nicholson sought to vacate his convictions and death sentences, primarily challenging aspects of his trial and raising claims related to mental retardation and other constitutional issues. The district court reviewed the state court record, conducted an evidentiary hearing on one claim, evaluated expert testimony on adaptive skills and mental capacity, and addressed the petitioner's arguments on the merits.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

In Nieto v. Flatau, a retired Marine and civilian employee at Camp Lejeune sued base officials after they enforced a traffic regulation prohibiting extremist or indecent vehicle decals, ordering him to remove decals expressing his views on Islam, terrorism, and the 2000 USS Cole bombing that killed his son, or face exclusion from the base. The plaintiff claimed violations of his First Amendment free speech rights and equal protection. The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff and permanently enjoined viewpoint-discriminatory enforcement of the regulation. It reasoned that while military commanders have broad authority to restrict expressive activity on base to maintain order and mission readiness, they may not apply such restrictions in a manner that discriminates against particular viewpoints, as evidenced here by the selective prohibition of the plaintiff's decals while permitting other potentially controversial messages.

free speechcivil rightsfederal power

The case involved a plaintiff who sued the Town of Columbia, Tyrrell County, and the county sheriff after being assaulted by a group while walking in a high-crime area of town, claiming the defendants violated his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to protect him from private violence, along with related state-law claims for negligence and nuisance. The court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment on the federal claim and dismissed the state claims without prejudice. It reasoned that the Due Process Clause does not impose an affirmative duty on the state to protect citizens from harm by private actors, as established in DeShaney v. Winnebago County, and found no evidence that the defendants created or enhanced the danger to the plaintiff. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims after dismissing the sole federal claim.

civil rightsprocedure

This product liability case arose after plaintiff Gary Stoddard developed tardive dyskinesia allegedly from taking generic metoclopramide, the bioequivalent of the brand-name drug Reglan, for several years. Plaintiffs sued the brand-name manufacturers Wyeth and Schwarz as well as the generic maker PLIVA. The court dismissed the strict-liability counts because North Carolina does not recognize strict liability in product-liability actions. It also granted summary judgment to Wyeth and Schwarz on the remaining claims, holding that a brand-name manufacturer cannot be liable for injuries caused by another company’s generic product that the plaintiff never ingested. The ruling follows the reasoning that brand-name firms have no control over generics and that generic makers copy the brand labeling without creating liability for the originator.

torts & liabilityhealthcare

In Viault v. United States, plaintiff Patricia Viault, working as an independent contractor stocking shelves at Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, was injured when she slipped through a hole in the floor of a freight trailer provided by another contractor, Waste Industries. She and her husband sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, claiming negligence by Air Force employees in failing to inspect or warn about the hazard. The government moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, asserting that the independent contractor exception and discretionary function exception limited the FTCA's waiver of sovereign immunity. The court examined the base's contract with Waste Industries, which assigned responsibility for trailer maintenance to the contractor while retaining some inspection rights for the government, and reviewed evidence of commissary employees' knowledge and handling of trailer defects. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion to strike affidavits as moot and granted leave to address new issues raised in reply, while rejecting certain arguments on the independent contractor exception.

torts & liabilityfederal power

This case involved North Carolina Medicaid-eligible children and their families suing the state health department secretary, alleging that reductions or terminations of behavioral health and developmental disability services violated the Medicaid Act's fair hearing requirements and the Due Process Clause. Plaintiffs sought class certification and relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for improper benefit denials without timely notice or continued benefits pending appeal. The court denied the defendant's motions to dismiss, ruling that the Medicaid provisions conferred enforceable federal rights and that abstention doctrines did not apply, while also granting leave to file certain declarations and denying the motion to strike. It denied class certification without prejudice to allow limited discovery on class-related issues before any ruling.

civil rightshealthcareprocedure

This case involves a patent infringement dispute in which Troxler sued Pine for infringing U.S. Patent No. 5,323,655 on a method and apparatus for compacting material samples, and Pine counterclaimed that Troxler infringed U.S. Patent No. 5,606,133 on a gyratory compactor with a mold specimen extruder. Both patents concern machines used to compact and test soil and paving materials under simulated road conditions. The magistrate judge recommended a finding that Troxler's 4140, 4140B, and 4141 models literally infringe specified claims of the '133 patent based on prior claim construction showing that all recited elements are present in the accused devices. The magistrate also recommended denying Troxler's motion for summary judgment of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), finding the '133 patent entitled to the presumption of validity from the examiner's double-patenting analysis, while granting Pine's cross-motion on that defense. However, the magistrate recommended denying summary judgment on Pine's infringement claim and on Troxler's laches and equitable estoppel defenses because material factual issues remain unresolved regarding misleading conduct and unreasonable delay.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case Koerber v. Federal Election Commission involved plaintiffs, a nonprofit corporation organized as a social welfare entity and an individual viewer, challenging the constitutionality of BCRA sections 201 and 311 disclosure and disclaimer requirements for electioneering communications, along with the FEC's enforcement policy on political committee status. Plaintiffs sought expedited relief including a preliminary injunction to bar FEC enforcement against their television ads discussing a candidate's record on issues like abortion and inviting viewer contact. The court outlined the preliminary injunction standard under the Blackwelder hardship balancing test, weighing irreparable harm to plaintiffs against harm to the defendant, likelihood of success on the merits, and public interest, while noting Buckley v. Valeo limits on disclosure to express advocacy of candidates.

electionsfree speech

This case involves current and former production line workers at Butterball's turkey processing plant who sued under the Fair Labor Standards Act and North Carolina Wage and Hour Act, alleging unpaid regular and overtime wages for time spent donning and doffing required protective gear, traveling to production lines, and automatic break deductions under a gang-time pay system. Butterball moved for partial summary judgment on the plaintiffs' state payday statute claim, arguing FLSA preemption under Anderson v. Sara Lee Corp. and lack of an express contract to pay for donning and doffing time. The court granted the motions in part and denied them in part, dismissing any state-law claims seeking overtime pay mandated by the FLSA or alleging sub-minimum wages due to uncompensated hours, based on obstacle preemption where state claims depend on FLSA violations and require identical proof. However, the court denied summary judgment on the payday claim to the extent it invoked independent state substantive law rather than FLSA mandates and rejected the argument that an express contract was required for such claims.

labor & employmentfederal power

In Lynch v. Parrish, the Bankruptcy Administrator appealed the denial of a motion to dismiss a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition filed by debtor Colleen Parrish, a homemaker with no personal income. The Administrator argued that the debtor had improperly calculated her allowable living expenses under the means test of 11 U.S.C. § 707(b) by using her husband's gross monthly income rather than her current monthly income under the bankruptcy code, which would have created a presumption of abuse. The district court reviewed the bankruptcy court's legal interpretation de novo and affirmed the ruling, holding that the IRS National Standards for expenses under § 707(b)(2)(A)(ii)(I) are determined based on gross monthly income of the debtor and spouse, not current monthly income, and that the debtor's calculations properly showed no presumption of abuse.

business & regulatoryfederal power

This case is an interpleader action filed by Fort Dearborn Life Insurance Company to resolve competing claims to $56,000 in life insurance proceeds from a policy held by Anthony Hughes, who died in a 1995 car accident without naming a beneficiary. The policy directed payment in equal shares to Hughes' then-living children. Claimant Beverly Turner, on behalf of her daughter A.R.T. (whose paternity Hughes had acknowledged via court order), sought the full proceeds, while claimant Vanzolla McMurran, on behalf of her daughter A.H. (born eight months after Hughes' death), claimed a half share based on evidence including the birth certificate, Social Security benefits, and affidavits. The court denied both parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, finding a genuine issue of material fact regarding A.H.'s paternity that precluded judgment as a matter of law, and noting that the policy did not require judicial establishment of paternity for posthumous children to qualify.

family lawprocedure

In this case, a deputy sheriff with epilepsy sued his employer, the New Hanover County Sheriff's Department and the sheriff, claiming termination and denial of reasonable accommodations violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. The plaintiff had disclosed his condition upon hiring, experienced a seizure while on duty leading to reassignment, and later requested a non-rotating day shift based on a doctor's report of uncontrolled seizures; his requests for transfer or schedule change were denied, and he was fired after the report showed he no longer met state medical standards for the role. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding the plaintiff was not a qualified individual with a disability because he could not perform essential functions without accommodation and the requested day-shift assignment was not reasonable as it would burden coworkers, no such positions existed, and he failed to show it would eliminate his seizures.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case concerned whether properties on Marine Corps bases in North Carolina, acquired by the federal government through 1941 condemnation proceedings, fall under exclusive federal jurisdiction pursuant to the Enclave Clause and North Carolina's 1907 cession statute, thereby exempting them from local ad valorem taxation by Onslow and Craven Counties. Plaintiff AMCC sought a declaratory judgment of exclusive federal jurisdiction and tax immunity, while the counties counterclaimed that the properties remained subject to taxation. The court granted summary judgment for the plaintiff, holding that the federal government properly acquired the lands and accepted exclusive jurisdiction via letters from the Acting Secretary of the Navy, triggering the statutory exemption from state, county, and municipal taxes for lands owned by the United States. The decision rested on the plain language of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 104-7, the constitutional cession process, and undisputed facts of title transfer and acceptance for five of the six parcels, with the sixth resolved by additional evidence of acceptance.

federal powertaxesproperty

In this diversity action, plaintiff SouthStar Funding sued a law firm and attorney for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and negligent misrepresentation arising from the attorney’s handling of a mortgage loan closing, seeking $43,021.40 in compensatory damages plus $120,000 in punitive damages. Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that the amount in controversy could not reach the $75,000 threshold because the punitive damages claim was unsupported. The court granted the motion and dismissed the case without prejudice, finding that North Carolina law requires proof of fraud, malice, or willful conduct to award punitive damages for breach of fiduciary duty and that the complaint alleged no facts supporting any of those aggravating factors. Plaintiff failed to meet its burden of establishing jurisdiction when challenged, and the pleadings were also insufficient even under ordinary pleading standards. The court applied North Carolina’s Rule 41 tolling provision to allow refiling in state court within one year.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved plaintiffs Lewis and Flowers, who sued Microsoft seeking cancellation of its registered WINDOWS trademark, alleging common law rights in their earlier WINDOWPAD software mark and fraud on the USPTO regarding the first-use date. Plaintiffs had previously pursued similar cancellation petitions before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board and appeals in federal court, all of which were unsuccessful. The district court granted Microsoft's motions for judgment on the pleadings and to dismiss under Rules 12(c) and 12(b)(6), holding that the infringement, declaratory relief, and RICO claims were barred by res judicata due to prior final decisions and that the fraud allegations failed to state a claim because an erroneous first-use date is not material. The court also denied plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint as futile and declined to issue a prefiling injunction. The case was dismissed in full.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case was a declaratory judgment action in which plaintiffs, employees of Farmville EMS, sought a ruling that they were entitled to uninsured motorist coverage under the employer's commercial auto policy after sustaining injuries in a 2003 collision with an uninsured driver while riding in a personally owned vehicle not listed on the policy. The court granted summary judgment to defendant Selective Insurance and denied plaintiffs' cross-motion. It reasoned that the policy's UM endorsement defined insureds to include only those occupying a covered auto owned by the named insured corporation, plaintiffs did not qualify under either the policy language or North Carolina's uninsured motorist statute as Class One or Class Two insureds, and the statute imposed no requirement to extend coverage to this situation.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves the United States government's effort to enforce a 1992 criminal restitution judgment of $866,032 against defendant Jim Whittington by seeking an order for monthly installment payments. The court held a hearing and found that Whittington was diverting and concealing substantial earnings through World Deliverance Church, Inc., to fund a lavish lifestyle while avoiding restitution payments. Based on evidence from financial records and expert testimony, the court determined that Whittington has the current ability to pay $5,500 per month without financial distress. Accordingly, the court ordered Whittington to make installment payments of $5,500 per month until the judgment is satisfied, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 3204.

criminal lawprocedure

In Culbreth v. Ingram, a former Title 32 Active Guard Reserve officer in the North Carolina Army National Guard sued the state's Adjutant General and Chief of Staff under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that his involuntary separation from the program was retaliation for complaints he filed about superiors' misconduct and that defendants violated his First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, including by obtaining an email from another officer's hacked account. The plaintiff sought only equitable relief such as reinstatement and backpay. The court dismissed the case as nonjusticiable, applying the Mindes factors and intramilitary immunity principles from Supreme Court and Fourth Circuit precedent. It reasoned that adjudicating the claims would require improper judicial interference in sensitive military personnel decisions involving discretion and expertise, with three of the four Mindes factors weighing against review.

civil rightsfree speechfederal power