 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Beck v. City of Durham12/3/2002
or said damages pursuant to Article I, Section 19 of the North Carolina Constitution and 42 U.S.C.A. Section 1983.
These allegations, even when viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, are insufficient to establish that the City's actions were so arbitrary and capricious as to violate plaintiff's rights to due process and equal protection. See generally Dobrowolska v. Wall, 138 N.C. App. 1, 530 S.E.2d 590, disc. review allowed, 352 N.C. 588, 544 S.E.2d 778 (2000), disc. review improvidently allowed in part; appeal dismissed ex mero motu in part, 355 N.C. 205, 558 S.E.2d 174 (2002). Plaintiff's assignment of error is therefore overruled because his complaint fails to indicate genuine issues of material fact regarding the City's refusal to pay damages for his claims.
For the aforementioned reasons, we conclude that the trial court did not err in granting defendants' motion to dismiss all of plaintiff's claims.
Affirmed.
Judges GREENE and TIMMONS-GOODSON concur.
|