You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Kanu v. 00204 GLC

Citation: 373 F. App'x 425Docket: No. 09-1975

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; April 8, 2010; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

Serwah Kanu appeals the district court’s dismissal of her civil action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, which was granted based on a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). The court reviewed the record and found that Kanu’s complaint did not sufficiently state a claim for this cause of action, referencing Womack v. Eldridge as precedent. The district court's order of dismissal is affirmed. Oral argument was deemed unnecessary as the facts and legal issues were sufficiently presented in the submitted materials.

Legal Issues Addressed

Affirmation of District Court's Order

Application: The appellate court affirmed the district court's dismissal, indicating agreement with the lower court's assessment of the case.

Reasoning: The district court's order of dismissal is affirmed.

Dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c)

Application: The court dismissed the civil action for intentional infliction of emotional distress based on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, as the complaint did not sufficiently state a claim.

Reasoning: Serwah Kanu appeals the district court’s dismissal of her civil action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, which was granted based on a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c).

Oral Argument Unnecessary

Application: The court determined that oral argument was not needed because the case facts and legal arguments were adequately detailed in the written submissions.

Reasoning: Oral argument was deemed unnecessary as the facts and legal issues were sufficiently presented in the submitted materials.

Sufficiency of Complaint for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Application: The court found that the appellant's complaint did not meet the threshold necessary to state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, citing precedent.

Reasoning: The court reviewed the record and found that Kanu’s complaint did not sufficiently state a claim for this cause of action, referencing Womack v. Eldridge as precedent.