In this bankruptcy case, debtors filed a motion to avoid a second lien held by BB&T on their residence under 11 U.S.C. §§ 506(a) and (d), claiming the property value was less than or equal to the amount of the first lien. The Bankruptcy Court denied the motion, finding based on appraisal evidence that the property value exceeded the first lien and partially secured BB&T's lien. On appeal, the District Court affirmed the denial, concluding that the Bankruptcy Court's factual valuation was not clearly erroneous after reviewing the competing witness testimonies and credibility assessments.
In Lee v. Johnson, a pro se prisoner at Pocahontas State Correctional Center sued prison officials and a chaplain under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, alleging that denial of group worship services and religious materials for his House of Yahweh faith violated his First Amendment free exercise rights. The court granted the plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint to add claims against the chaplain but dismissed those claims, finding the chaplain was not a state actor subject to suit. It also granted summary judgment to the remaining defendants, upholding the prison's neutral policy requiring at least five interested inmates to authorize group religious services as a reasonable restriction that did not substantially burden the plaintiff's religious exercise. The decision rested on the policy's even application to multiple faiths, the absence of any showing that the plaintiff could not practice individually, and the prison's legitimate interests in security and resource allocation.
In United States v. Abramski, the defendant was indicted on two counts for falsely stating on ATF Form 4473 that he was the actual buyer of a firearm, when he was actually purchasing it for another person, in alleged violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(a)(6) and 924(a)(1)(A). The defendant moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the "actual buyer" question on the form was not statutorily required and that the ATF had improperly created a substantive requirement without following Administrative Procedure Act notice-and-comment procedures. The court denied the motion, holding that Chapter 44 of Title 18 requires licensed dealers to record information about the actual buyer’s identity to enforce eligibility rules, making false statements on this point criminal under the cited statutes. The court adopted the reasoning of the Eleventh Circuit in United States v. Nelson, which concluded that such information is necessary to prevent circumvention of firearms laws through straw purchases and that the charges rest on congressional enactments rather than agency interpretations.
The case involves Kimberly Chamberlain suing her former employer, Valley Health System, under the Americans with Disabilities Act, claiming she was unlawfully terminated after reporting a vision impairment in one eye that affected her work as a pharmacy technician. Chamberlain alleged that the employer forced her to take medical leave over her objections and then fired her despite her later release to return to work by a specialist. The court denied the employer's motion for summary judgment, finding that genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether Valley Health's stated reason for termination—her alleged failure to submit required medical certification—was a pretext for disability discrimination. The decision emphasized that the plaintiff's evidence, if credited, could allow a reasonable jury to conclude the termination was discriminatory rather than based on legitimate policy enforcement.
In Gallant v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., the plaintiff Ann Karima Gallant filed a pro se quiet title action seeking injunctive and declaratory relief against Deutsche Bank following foreclosure proceedings on her property in Charlottesville, Virginia. The plaintiff challenged the foreclosure on grounds including inadequate notice, failure to produce the original promissory note, lack of proof of assignment, RICO violations, and conflict of interest by the substitute trustee. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), finding that the complaint failed to state plausible claims because the allegations were either legally insufficient under Virginia law or lacked the necessary factual support to meet the Twombly/Iqbal pleading standards.
Thomas W. Coder, a former Army member serving a life sentence after a court-martial conviction for conspiracy and premeditated murder, filed a pro se habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 while housed in a federal prison. He alleged that applying federal parole guidelines rather than military ones, along with the U.S. Parole Commission's authority and denials of clemency, violated due process, equal protection, and the Ex Post Facto Clause. The district court granted the warden's motion to dismiss, first confirming jurisdiction because the custodian warden was the proper respondent, then rejecting the claims on the merits or as procedurally barred.