Lawrence Hawthorne v. Virginia State University

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:12-cv-00620-JAG-MHL Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999341715].. [13-2237]

Appeal: 13-2237

Doc: 28

Filed: 04/23/2014

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-2237

LAWRENCE HAWTHORNE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
VIRGINIA STATE UNIVERSITY; THOMAS LAROSE, Individually and
in his official capacity as Chairperson of the Arts
Department of Virginia State University,
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-00620-JAG-MHL)

Submitted:

April 17, 2014

Decided:

April 23, 2014

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Josephine S. Miller, LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPHINE SMALLS MILLER, East
Hartford, Connecticut; Samuel H. Woodson, III, LAW OFFICE OF
S.H. WOODSON, III, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Mark R.
Herring, Attorney General of Virginia, Rhodes B. Ritenour,
Deputy Attorney General, Peter R. Messitt, Ronald N. Regnery,
Senior Assistant Attorneys General, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-2237

Doc: 28

Filed: 04/23/2014

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Lawrence Hawthorne appeals the district court’s order
granting

summary

judgment

to

the

Defendants

on

remaining claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (2006). *
contends

that

the

district

court

erred

in

Hawthorne’s

On appeal, he

granting

judgment to the Defendants based on the evidence.

summary

We affirm.

We review whether a district court erred in granting
summary judgment de novo, applying the same legal standards as
the district court and viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to the nonmoving party.
132, 135 (4th Cir. 2012).
“against

a

party

who

Martin v. Lloyd, 700 F.3d

A court must enter summary judgment

fails

to

make

a

showing

sufficient

to

establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s
case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at
trial.”

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986).
“Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a

rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party, there
is no genuine issue for trial.”
Zenith

Radio

internal

Corp.,

quotations

475

U.S.

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v.
574,

omitted).

587

“The

(1986)

nonmoving

(citation
party

and

cannot

create a genuine issue of material fact through mere speculation

*

The district court previously dismissed Hawthorne’s claims
against Virginia State University based on sovereign immunity.

2

Appeal: 13-2237

Doc: 28

Filed: 04/23/2014

Pg: 3 of 4

or the building of one inference upon another,” Othentec Ltd. v.
Phelan, 526 F.3d 135, 140 (4th Cir. 2008) (citation and internal
quotations omitted), and he cannot defeat summary judgment with
merely a scintilla of evidence, Am. Arms Int’l v. Herbert, 563
F.3d 78, 82 (4th Cir. 2009).
evidence

(more

than

a

Rather, he “must produce some

scintilla)

upon

which

a

jury

could

properly proceed to find a verdict for the party producing it,
upon whom the onus of proof is imposed.”

Othentec Ltd., 526

F.3d at 140 (citations and internal quotations omitted).
“Section 1981 guarantees to all persons in the United
States ‘the same right . . . to make and enforce contracts . . .
as is enjoyed by white citizens.’”

Spriggs v. Diamond Auto.

Glass, 165 F.3d 1015, 1017 (4th Cir. 1999) (quoting 42 U.S.C.
§ 1981(a)).

Section 1981 “can be violated only by purposeful

discrimination,” Gen. Bldg. Contractors Ass’n v. Pennsylvania,
458 U.S. 375, 391 (1982), and “must be founded on purposeful,
racially

discriminatory

actions,”

Spriggs,

165

F.3d

at

1018.

“[T]o make out a claim for individual liability under § 1981, a
plaintiff

must

demonstrate

some

affirmative

link

to

causally

connect the actor with the discriminatory action,” and the claim
“must

be

predicated

on

the

actor’s

personal

involvement.”

Whidbee v. Garzarelli Food Specialties, Inc., 223 F.3d 62, 75
(2d Cir. 2000) (citations and internal quotations omitted).

3

Appeal: 13-2237

Doc: 28

Filed: 04/23/2014

Pg: 4 of 4

We have reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs,
and we conclude that the district court did not err in granting
summary judgment to the Defendants.

Accordingly, we affirm for

the reasons stated by the district court.

See Hawthorne v. Va.

State Univ., No. 3:12-cv-00620-JAG-MHL (E.D. Va. Aug. 9, 2013).
We

dispense

contentions

with
are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the

facts

and

the

materials

legal
before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

4