J. W. v. Corporal Carrier

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:13-cv-02386-MJG Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999797824].. [15-1743]

Appeal: 15-1743

Doc: 46

Filed: 04/19/2016

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1743

J.W., by
Wikle,

and

through

his

father

and

next

friend

Eugene

Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CORPORAL CARRIER; ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION;
ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY; RAMONE JARVIS; DARCEL PARKER; KYLE
MCKNETT,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
ARUNDEL
MIDDLE
DEPARTMENT,

SCHOOL;

ANNE

ARUNDEL

COUNTY

POLICE

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District
Judge. (1:13-cv-02386-MJG)

Submitted:

March 28, 2016

Decided:

April 19, 2016

Before NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Appeal: 15-1743

Doc: 46

Filed: 04/19/2016

Pg: 2 of 5

John Hopkins, Mount Rainier, Maryland, for Appellant.
McCutchan Duden, County Attorney, Hamilton F. Tyler,
County Attorney, Annapolis, Maryland, for Appellees.

Nancy
Deputy

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 15-1743

Doc: 46

Filed: 04/19/2016

Pg: 3 of 5

PER CURIAM:
J.W.,
Wikle,

by

and

appeals

through

the

his

district

father

court’s

and

next

orders

friend

granting

judgment to Defendants and denying reconsideration.

Eugene
summary

J.W. argues

that summary judgment was inappropriate because genuine issues
of material fact exist as to whether Corporal Carrier’s use of
force was reasonable.

We affirm.

We “review[] de novo the district court’s order granting
summary judgment.”

Jacobs v. N.C. Admin. Office of the Courts,

780 F.3d 562, 565 n.1 (4th Cir. 2015).

“A district court ‘shall

grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no
genuine

dispute

as

to

any

material

fact

entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)).

and

the

movant

is

Id. at 568 (quoting

In determining whether a genuine issue

of material fact exists, “we view the facts and all justifiable
inferences

arising

therefrom

. . . the nonmoving party.”
marks omitted).

in

the

light

most

favorable

to

Id. at 565 n.1 (internal quotation

“Conclusory or speculative allegations do not

suffice, nor does a mere scintilla of evidence in support of
[the nonmoving party’s] case.”

Thompson v. Potomac Elec. Power

Co., 312 F.3d 645, 649 (4th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
“A

‘claim

that

law

enforcement

officials

used

excessive

force in the course of making an arrest, investigatory stop, or
3

Appeal: 15-1743

Doc: 46

Filed: 04/19/2016

other

seizure

a

of

Pg: 4 of 5

‘properly

person’

is

analyzed

under

Fourth Amendment’s objective reasonableness standard.’”

the

Estate

of Armstrong ex rel. Armstrong v. Vill. of Pinehurst, 810 F.3d
892, 899 (4th Cir. 2016) (quoting Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S.
386,

388

(1989)

omitted)).

(alteration

“Evaluating

the

and

internal

quotation

reasonableness

of

the

marks

officer’s

actions ‘requires a careful balancing of the nature and quality
of the intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests
against

the

countervailing

governmental

interests

at

stake.’”

Smith v. Ray, 781 F.3d 95, 101 (4th Cir. 2015) (quoting Graham,
490 U.S. at 397).

We look to three factors when making this

determination: “[f]irst, . . . the severity of the [conduct] at
issue; second, . . . the extent to which the suspect poses an
immediate threat to the safety of the officer[] or others; and
third, . . . whether [the suspect] is actively resisting” the
officer’s

attempts.

quotation

marks

Armstrong,

omitted).

810

“[T]he

F.3d

at

question

is

899

(internal

whether

the

officer[’s] actions are objectively reasonable in light of the
facts

and

circumstances

confronting

[him],

[his] underlying intent or motivation.”

without

regard

to

Graham, 490 U.S. at 397

(internal quotation marks omitted).
We conclude that Corporal Carrier’s use of force in lifting
J.W.’s arm was objectively reasonable.

Immediately prior to

placing J.W. in handcuffs, Carrier heard J.W. threaten to harm
4

Appeal: 15-1743

Doc: 46

Filed: 04/19/2016

Pg: 5 of 5

himself and saw J.W. tip over a desk near a teacher.

J.W.

resisted the initial handcuffing and continued to resist Carrier
once

in

handcuffs;

J.W.

tried

to

pull

his

handcuffs and kicked Carrier in the thigh.

hands

from

the

It was only at that

point that Carrier lifted J.W.’s arm, resulting in injury to
J.W.
While “the government has little interest in using force to
effect [a] seizure” justified by preventing harm to the subject
of the seizure, Armstrong, 810 F.3d at 901, at the time Carrier
lifted J.W.’s arm, Carrier could have reasonably believed that
J.W. posed a threat to both himself and others.

Moreover, J.W.

was actively resisting the seizure at the time Carrier lifted up
J.W.’s arm.

We therefore conclude that Carrier’s use of force

was objectively reasonable.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders.
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

5