Joyce Bagley v. WMATA

Filing 920100513

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1330

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)

Submitted:

April 22, 2010

Decided:

May 13, 2010

Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge.

DAVIS,

Circuit

Judges,

and

HAMILTON,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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

METROPOLITAN Appellee.

AREA

TRANSIT

AUTHORITY,

Washington,

D.C.,

for

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

PER CURIAM: Joyce striking Washington motion for the F. Bagley appeals of Area and her the district court's order

testimony

expert,

granting

Appellee

Metropolitan

Transit

Authority summary

("WMATA")'s judgment to

reconsideration,

granting

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

of

the

lack

of

evidence of a

that

WMATA

had

either in

actual the

or

constructive

notice

defective

condition

station

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

process. AFFIRMED

4