Joyce Bagley v. WMATA

Filing 920100513

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1330 JOYCE F. BAGLEY, Plaintiff Appellant, v. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY,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 DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Washington, D.C., for Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Joyce striking Washington motion for the F. Bagley appeals of Area and her the district court's order testimony expert, granting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

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?