Debrew v. Brooks

2 Citing cases

  1. Debrew v. Brooks

    475 F. App'x 479 (4th Cir. 2012)   Cited 2 times

    Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. DeBrew v. Brooks, No. 5:10-ct-03198-D (E.D.N.C. July 22, 2011 & Jan. 24, 2012). 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.

  2. Ramadan v. Fbop

    Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-25757 (S.D.W. Va. Aug. 27, 2015)   Cited 1 times

    Based upon the foregoing, the undersigned finds that there is no damage remedy under Bivens for alleged violations of the First Amendment. See Turkmen v. Hasty, 789 F.3d 218, 236 (2nd Cir. 2015)(Damages remedy under Bivens was not available to detainees in federal custody based upon their claim that officers interfered with their prayer and access to copies of the Quran in violation of their rights under the Free Exercise Clause); Clinton v. Brown, 2015 WL 4941799 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 19, 2015)(finding that Plaintiff's allegation of a violation of his First Amendment right to freedom of religion was an unrecognized claim under Bivens); Heap v. Carter, 2015 WL 3999077 (E.D.Va. July 1, 2015)(no implied cause of action for damages under Bivens for alleged violations of the First Amendment); Blackman v. Torres, 2013 WL 941830, * 2 (D.Colo. March, 11, 2013)(dismissing the damages aspect of plaintiff's First Amendment claim); DeBrew v. Brooks, 2011 WL 9933745, * 3 (E.D.N.C. July 22, 2011)(Plaintiff is not entitled to monetary relief on his First Amendment claim), aff'd, 475 Fed. Apex. 479 (4th Cir. 2012). Accordingly, the undersigned respectfully recommends that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment be granted as Plaintiff's Bivens claim for monetary damages.