Joi Elizabeth Peake

“IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. #8] and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [Doc. #14] be DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as moot in light of the pending settlement.”

“IT IS RECOMMENDED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Doc. #11] be denied because it relies on evidence outside the pleadings, but without prejudice to further consideration on a future Motion for Summary Judgment”

“Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. #19] be denied as premature without prejudice to further consideration on a future Motion after the close of the discovery period.”

“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel [Doc. #17] and Motion to Compel [Doc. #18] are denied”

“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel [Doc. #17] and Motion to Compel [Doc. #18] are denied, and Defendants’ Motion for Extension of Time [Doc. #23] is denied as moot in light of the Court’s Recommendation.”

After the court vacated an earlier judgment, Peake considered the new in forma pauperis application but made no ruling on that application. She recommended that the action be filed and dismissed without prejudice because the plaintiff had not cured the complaint’s defects; she explained that his challenge to his conviction belonged in his separate motion to vacate his sentence.

“IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Defendant Cytokinetics, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, and in the alternative, Transfer [Doc. #15], in which Defendant Datatrak International, Inc. has joined [Doc. #36], be granted and that this action be dismissed.”

“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff APR’s Motion for Oral Argument [Doc. #21] is DENIED.”

“IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be temporarily stayed pending the United States District Court for the Southern District of California’s consideration of the exercise of personal jurisdiction over APR, and that the Motion to Dismiss, Transfer or Stay filed by Defendant Advanced Targeting Systems, Inc. [Doc. #8] be otherwise DENIED without prejudice to it being refiled following the California court’s resolution of the question whether it may exercise personal jurisdiction over APR.”

“IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be filed, but then dismissed sua sponte without prejudice to Petitioner raising any claims challenging the convictions in 1:22CR150-1 in that case or on direct appeal, or in a later motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.”

“IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. #17] be GRANTED, and that this case be dismissed with prejudice.”

“IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the Motions to Dismiss of Maryland Defendants Hart [Doc. #19], Harmon, Harris, and Jerry [Doc. #39], Beswick, Cupples, and Talley [Doc. #72], and Bagwell, Botfort, Charles County, and Fields [Doc. #41, #130] be GRANTED to the extent that all claims against these Defendants should be DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction.”

“IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the City of Newburg be DISMISSED as a Defendant on the basis that the Complaint fails to state a claim against that municipality, and the Court gives notice of this intent and an opportunity to respond to this Recommendation.”

“IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Defendants Mecklenburg County, Prunty, and Wade’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. #47] be denied as to Defendants Prunty and Wade in the individual capacities, but granted as to the claims against them in their official capacities and as to the claims against Mecklenburg County based on the failure to state a Monell claim.”

“IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED and that Defendants City of Kannapolis, Boehman, and Livengood’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. #101] be denied as to the claims against Defendants Boehman and Livengood in their individual capacities, but granted as to the claims against them in their official capacities and as to the claims against City of Kannapolis for failure to state a Monell claim.”

“that the Motion to Set Aside Default [Doc. #42] by Defendants Bagwell and Botfort is GRANTED”

“that the Motion to Set Aside Default [Doc. #35] by Defendants City of Kannapolis, Boehman, and Livengood is GRANTED.”

“IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that the Commissioner’s decision finding no disability be REVERSED, and that the matter be REMANDED to the Commissioner under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). ... Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [Doc. #13] should be DENIED, and Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [Doc. #11] should be GRANTED.”

“IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that the Commissioner’s decision finding no disability be AFFIRMED, that Plaintiff’s Motion to Reverse the Decision of the Commissioner [Doc. #11] be DENIED, that Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [Doc. #13] be GRANTED, and that this action be DISMISSED with prejudice.”

“IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that the Commissioner's decision finding no disability be REVERSED, and that the matter be REMANDED to the Commissioner under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [Doc. #16] should be DENIED, and Plaintiff's Motion to Reverse the Decision of the Commissioner [Doc.# 13] should be GRANTED to the extent set out herein.”

“that the Commissioner's decision finding no disability be REVERSED, that Defendant's Dispositive Brief [Doc. #13] be DENIED, that Plaintiff's Dispositive Brief [Doc. #12] be GRANTED, and that this action be REMANDED for further consideration in accordance with the directives set out herein.”