Mary Beasley v. Arron Brown

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:12-cv-00006-JAG-MHL Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999202281].. [13-1552]

Appeal: 13-1552

Doc: 29

Filed: 09/26/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1552

MARY E. BEASLEY, Personal
Darryl E. Beasley,

Representative

for

Estate

of

Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ARRON BROWN; RENEE BROTHERS; ANTHONY
HENDERSON; KENNETH KEPLEY, Captain,

ANDERSON;

OFFICER

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
John A. Gibney, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:12-cv-00006-JAG-MHL)

Submitted:

September 24, 2013

Before NIEMEYER and
Senior Circuit Judge.

THACKER,

Decided:

Circuit

September 26, 2013

Judges,

and

HAMILTON,

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David P. Morgan, CRAVENS & NOLL PC, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellant.
William F. Etherington, Leslie A. Winneberger,
BEALE, DAVIDSON, ETHERINGTON & MORRIS, P.C., Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-1552

Doc: 29

Filed: 09/26/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Mary

E.

Beasley

(“Beasley”)

appeals

the

district

court’s order granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment
in her civil action alleging Defendants used excessive force
against

her

son,

Darryl

Beasley,

in

§ 1983 (2006), resulting in his death.

violation

of

42

U.S.C.

Beasley further asserted

common law state claims of wrongful death and conspiracy.

The

district court concluded that Beasley failed to produce evidence
establishing

that

Defendants’

conduct

violated

the

decedent’s

constitutional rights and that, even if a violation occurred,
Defendants’ actions were not so unreasonable as to place them
outside the scope of qualified immunity.

The district court

further denied relief on Beasley’s state law claims.
This court reviews de novo a district court’s order
granting summary judgment.
607 (4th Cir. 2010).

Robinson v. Clipse, 602 F.3d 605,

Summary judgment shall be granted when

“there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Civ. P. 56(a).

Fed. R.

“At the summary judgment stage, facts must be

viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party only
if there is a genuine dispute as to those facts.”
Harris,

550

omitted).

U.S.

372,

380

(2007)

(internal

Scott v.

quotation

marks

A district court should grant summary judgment unless

a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party
2

Appeal: 13-1552

Doc: 29

Filed: 09/26/2013

Pg: 3 of 3

on the evidence presented.

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,

477

An

U.S.

motion

242,

for

249

(1986).

summary

judgment

otherwise

will

not

properly

be

supported

defeated

by

the

existence of any factual dispute; “[o]nly disputes over facts
that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing
law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment.”
at 248.
nor

Id.

“Conclusory or speculative allegations do not suffice,

does

a

mere

scintilla

of

evidence

in

support

of”

the

nonmoving party’s case.

Thompson v. Potomac Elec. Power Co.,

312

Cir.

F.3d

645,

649

(4th

2002)

(internal

quotation

marks

omitted).
We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the materials
submitted on appeal and conclude that the district court did not
err

in

granting

Defendants’

motion

for

summary

judgment.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court.

Beasley v. Brown, No. 3:12-cv-00006-JAG-MHL (E.D. Va.

Mar. 27, 2013).
facts

and

materials

legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the
contentions

are

adequately

this

and

argument

court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3