green
Positive treatment
25.3 score
Treatment trajectory · 1992 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1992
2009
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 17 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
James Alexander Ray v. Brevard Police Department, et al.
To make this determination, a court must collectively assess “(1) whether the plaintiff asserts a claim that is not frivolous, (2) the difficulty of the claim, and (3) whether the plaintiff can present the claim considering the skill required to do so and the plaintiff’s individual abilities.” Jenkins v. Woodard, 109 F.4th 242, 248 (4th Cir. 2024) (citing Brock v. City of Richmond, 983 F.2d 1055, 1055 (4th Cir. 1993) (per curiam)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Brandon Michael Kisiah v. K. Martin, et al.
To make this determination, a court must collectively assess “(1) whether the plaintiff asserts a claim that is not frivolous, (2) the difficulty of the claim, and (3) whether the plaintiff can present the claim considering the skill required to do so and the plaintiff’s individual abilities.” Jenkins v. Woodard, 109 F.4th 242, 248 (4th Cir. 2024) (citing Brock v. City of Richmond, 983 F.2d 1055, 1055 (4th Cir. 1993) (per curiam)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Anderson v. Goodsum
To make this determination, a court must collectively assess “(1) whether the plaintiff asserts a claim that is not frivolous, (2) the difficulty of the claim, and (3) whether the plaintiff can present the claim considering the skill required to do so and the plaintiff’s individual abilities.” Jenkins v. Woodard, 109 F.4th 242, 248 (4th Cir. 2024) (citing Brock v. City of Richmond, 983 F.2d 1055, 1055 (4th Cir. 1993) (per curiam)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Riddle v. Wilson
To make this determination, a court must collectively assess “(1) whether the plaintiff asserts a claim that is not frivolous, (2) the difficulty of the claim, and (3) whether the plaintiff can present the claim considering the skill required to do so and the plaintiff’s individual abilities.” Jenkins v. Woodard, 109 F.4th 242, 248 (4th Cir. 2024) (citing Brock v. City of Richmond, 983 F.2d 1055, 1055 (4th Cir. 1993) (per curiam)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lunsford v. Seene
To make this determination, a court must collectively assess “(1) whether the plaintiff asserts a claim that is not frivolous, (2) the difficulty of the claim, and (3) whether the plaintiff can present the claim considering the skill required to do so and the plaintiff’s individual abilities.” Jenkins v. Woodard, 109 F.4th 242, 248 (4th Cir. 2024) (citing Brock v. City of Richmond, 983 F.2d 1055, 1055 (4th Cir. 1993) (per curiam)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sanders v. Union County Jail
To make this determination, a court must collectively assess “(1) whether the plaintiff asserts a claim that is not frivolous, (2) the difficulty of the claim, and (3) whether the plaintiff can present the claim considering the skill required to do so and the plaintiff's individual abilities.” Jenkins v. Woodard, 109 F.4th 242, 248 (4th Cir. 2024) (citing Brock v. City of Richmond, 983 F.2d 1055, 1055 (4th Cir. 1993) (per curiam)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hubbard v. United States of America Bureau of Prisons
To make this determination, a court must collectively assess “(1) whether the plaintiff asserts a claim that is not frivolous, (2) the difficulty of the claim, and (3) whether the plaintiff can present the claim considering the skill required to do so and the plaintiff’s individual abilities.” Jenkins, 109 F.4th at 248 (citing Brock v. City of Richmond, 983 F.2d 1055, 1055 (4th Cir. 1993) (per curiam)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Montgomery v. Wolfe
To make this determination, a court must collectively assess “(1) whether the plaintiff asserts a claim that is not frivolous, (2) the difficulty of the claim, and (3) whether the plaintiff can present the claim considering the skill required to do so and the plaintiff’s individual abilities.” Jenkins v. Woodard, 109 F.4th 242, 248 (4th Cir. 2024) (citing Brock v. City of Richmond, 983 F.2d 1055, 1055 (4th Cir. 1993) (per curiam)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Anderson v. Barker
To make this determination, a court must collectively assess “(1) whether the plaintiff asserts a claim that is not frivolous, (2) the difficulty of the claim, and (3) whether the plaintiff can present the claim considering the skill required to do so and the plaintiff’s individual abilities.” Jenkins v. Woodard, 109 F.4th 242, 248 (4th Cir. 2024) (citing Brock v. City of Richmond, 983 F.2d 1055, 1055 (4th Cir. 1993) (per curiam)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Rivers v. United States
To make this determination, a court must collectively assess “(1) whether the plaintiff asserts a claim that is not frivolous, (2) the difficulty of the claim, and (3) whether the plaintiff can present the claim considering the skill required to do so and the plaintiff’s individual abilities.” Jenkins v. Woodard, 109 F.4th 242, 248 (4th Cir. 2024) (citing Brock v. City of Richmond, 983 F.2d 1055, 1055 (4th Cir. 1993) (per curiam)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Rivers v. Iredell County
To make this determination, a court must collectively assess “(1) whether the plaintiff asserts a claim that is not frivolous, (2) the difficulty of the claim, and (3) whether the plaintiff can present the claim considering the skill required to do so and the plaintiff’s individual abilities.” Jenkins v. Woodard, 109 F.4th 242, 248 (4th Cir. 2024) (citing Brock v. City of Richmond, 983 F.2d 1055, 1055 (4th Cir. 1993) (per curiam)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lowe v. Cathey
To make this determination, a court must collectively assess “(1) whether the plaintiff asserts a claim that is not frivolous, (2) the difficulty of the claim, and (3) whether the plaintiff can present the claim considering the skill required to do so and the plaintiff’s individual abilities.” Jenkins v. Woodard, 109 F.4th 242, 248 (4th Cir. 2024) (citing Brock v. City of Richmond, 983 F.2d 1055, 1055 (4th Cir. 1993) (per curiam)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Shook v. McNally
To make this determination, a court must collectively assess “(1) whether the plaintiff asserts a claim that is not frivolous, (2) the difficulty of the claim, and (3) whether the plaintiff can present the claim considering the skill required to do so and the plaintiff’s individual abilities.” Jenkins v. Woodard, __ F.4th __, 2024 WL 3490967 , at *5 (4th Cir. July 31, 2024) (citing Brock v. City of Richmond, 983 F.2d 1055, 1055 (4th Cir. 1993) (per curiam)).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Kenneth Jenkins v. Calvin Woodard
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
Brock, 983 F.2d at 1055.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Kenneth Jenkins v. Calvin Woodard
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
Brock, 983 F.2d at 1055.
discussed
Cited "see"
LeRoux v. Montgomery County, Maryland
See Cruz v. Bd. of Supervisors, 983 F.2d 1055 , 1993 WL 2667 , at *1 (4th Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (unpublished table decision) (affirming “[t]he magistrate-judge[’s] order[] . . . to produce the factual information contained in the internal affairs report of [the county’s] investigation into the [plaintiff’s] arrest but allow[ing] the county to redact nonfactual information”); Cipollone, 1987 WL 36515 , at *2 (“One of the rudimentary black letter rules is that while the privilege covers ‘opinions’ it does not cover ‘facts.’”); Md.
cited
Cited "see"
Dickson v. Ethicon, Inc.
See Brock, 983 F.2d 1055 (“To be exceptional, a movant’s limitations must be more severe, such as an inability to read or write effectively.”) (citing Whisenant, 739 F.2d at 162-63).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Monroe Cornish
v.
J. T. Hadden, Warden
v.
J. T. Hadden, Warden
92-6827.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Dec 23, 1992.
Unpublished
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Monroe CORNISH, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
J. T. HADDEN, Warden, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 92-6827.
United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: October 16, 1992
Decided: December 23, 1992
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District Judge. (CA-91-741-CRT-F)
Monroe Cornish, Appellant Pro Se.
Linda Kaye Teal, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
E.D.N.C.
AFFIRMED.
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
1
Monroe Cornish appeals from the district court's order which construed his complaint as an action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and dismissed it. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Cornish v. Hadden, No. CA-91741-CRT-F (E.D.N.C. June 19, 1992). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED