Skip to main content

Jimenez v. United States

Fed. Cl.January 27, 2026No. 23-129
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Robin M. Meriweather
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
motion to dismiss
Circuit
4th Circuit

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Ragland's civil complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), finding no reversible error. The case was dismissed at the motion to dismiss stage.

What This Ruling Means

**Jimenez v. United States: Employment Dispute Dismissed** **What Happened:** A worker named Ragland filed a lawsuit against the North Carolina Division of Employment Security, which handles unemployment benefits and job services in the state. The specific details of Ragland's complaint aren't provided, but it involved some type of employment-related dispute with this government agency. **What the Court Decided:** The court dismissed Ragland's case very early in the process, at the "motion to dismiss" stage, before the case could proceed to trial. This dismissal was upheld by a higher court (the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals), meaning Ragland lost at both levels. The dismissal occurred under a federal law that allows courts to throw out cases filed by people who cannot afford court fees if the case lacks merit. **Why This Matters for Workers:** This case serves as a reminder that workers filing employment lawsuits against government agencies face significant legal hurdles. Courts can dismiss cases early if they don't meet certain legal standards, even before examining the full facts. Workers considering legal action should ensure they have strong legal grounds and may benefit from consulting with an employment attorney to avoid early dismissal of their claims.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

Danziger v. United States
Fed. Cl.May 2026
Plaintiff Win
Diaz
Fed. Cl.Mar 2026

UNREPORTED OPINION DISMISSING CASE: The plaintiff filed his claim for wrongful discharge more than 18 years after April 16, 2007, and as a result his claims are untimely under 28 U.S.C. &167; 2501. Thus, the Court lacks jurisdiction over the plaintiff&039;s claims. The defendant&039;s [17] motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and the case is DISMISSED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment. No costs are awarded

Defendant Win
Michalovic Crawley v. United States
Fed. Cl.Dec 2020

REPORTED ORDER granting Unopposed Motion for Conditional Certification and Notice. Joint Status Report due by 1/8/2021. Signed by Senior Judge Nancy B. Firestone. (lb) Service on parties made. Keywords re Order on Motion, Reported Order: Fair Labor Standards Act 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) Conditional Certification

Plaintiff Win
Adams
Fed. Cl.Dec 2020

REPORTED ORDER Denying Motion to Dismiss - Rule 12(b)(6). The United States' Answer is due by 12/28/2020. The parties shall submit a Joint Preliminary Status Report by 1/11/2021. Signed by Judge David A. Tapp. (jm) Service on parties made.

Plaintiff Win
Abrantes
Fed. Cl.Dec 2020

REPORTED OPINION denying Motion to Dismiss - Rule 12(b)(1) and (6). On or before 2/12/2021, defendant is directed to FILE an answer or otherwise respond to plaintiffs' complaint and on or before 2/12/2021, the parties are directed to CONFER and FILE a Joint Status Report informing the court of their positions on the consolidation of this case with any other matters before the court. Signed by Judge Patricia E. Campbell-Smith. (mp) Service on parties made. Modified font of text on 12/13/2020 Keywords re: Reported Order on Motion to Dismiss. Motion to Dismiss RCFC 12(b)(6) Border Patrol Agent Pay Reform Act, 5 U.S.C. § 5550 Back Pay Act, 5 U.S.C. § 5596 Anti-Deficiency Act (ADA), 31 U.S.C. §§ 1341-42 Government Employees Fair Treatment Act of 2019 (GEFTA) Pub. L. No. 116-1, 133 Stat. 3 (2019).

Plaintiff Win

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.