Joyce Bagley v. WMATA
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
JOYCE F. BAGLEY, Plaintiff Appellant, v. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendant Appellee, and KONE, INCORPORATED, Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:07cv-00893-RWT)
April 22, 2010
May 13, 2010
Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Patrick J. Christmas, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Appellant. Gerard J. Stief, Senior Associate General Counsel, Carol B. O'Keeffe, General Counsel, Mark F. Sullivan, Deputy General Counsel, Michael K. Guss, Assistant General Counsel, WASHINGTON
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Joyce striking Washington motion for the F. Bagley appeals of Area and her the district court's order
("WMATA")'s judgment to
WMATA in Bagley's negligence action arising from a trip and fall incident at the Foggy Bottom Metrorail station in Washington, D.C. Bagley argues that the district court erred in granting Finding no error, we affirm.
summary judgment to WMATA.
We review de novo the district court's adverse grant of summary judgment and construe the facts in the light most favorable to Bagley, the non-moving party. Ins. Co., 556 F.3d 165, 167 (4th Cir. 2009). Rowzie v. Allstate Summary judgment
may be granted only when "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2). To survive summary
judgment, Bagley was required to "produce evidence from which a reasonable juror may conclude [not only] that a certain hazard caused the injury [but also] that [WMATA] had actual or
constructive notice of that hazard." Area Transit Auth., 959 A.2d 55,
Mixon v. Washington Metro. 58 (D.C. 2008) (internal
quotation marks omitted). We have reviewed the record and the parties' briefs and conclude that summary judgment for WMATA was proper in light 3
evidence of a
causing Bagley's injuries. court's order.
Accordingly, we affirm the district
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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?