Legal Opinion

Braswell v. Haywood Regional Medical Center

District Court, W.D. North Carolina

Decided January 14, 2005No. CIV. 1:04CV92PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

THORNBURG, District Judge.

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants’ motion to dismiss. For the reasons stated below, the motion is allowed in part and denied in part.

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) “should not be granted unless it appears certain that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts which would support [his] claim and would entitle [him] to relief.” Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Matkari, 7 F.3d 1130, 1134 (4th Cir.1993). “Because only the legal sufficiency of the complaint, and not the facts in support of it, are tested under a Rule…

2Cases cited33 opinions

  1. Heck v. HumphreySupreme Court of the United States · 1994
  2. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
  3. Pickering v. Board of Ed. of Township High School Dist. 205, Will Cty.Supreme Court of the United States · 1968
  4. Connick Ex Rel. Parish of Orleans v. MyersSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  5. Butz v. EconomouSupreme Court of the United States · 1978

28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Berger v. New Hanover Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rsNorth Carolina Business Court · 2013
  2. Church Ekklasia Sozo, Inc. v. CVS Health CorporationDistrict Court, W.D. North Carolina · 2021

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API