William Conrad v. CSX Transportation, Inc.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:14-cv-00051-MJG. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999755050]. [15-1757]

Appeal: 15-1757

Doc: 24

Filed: 02/16/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1757

WILLIAM M. CONRAD,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
CSX TRANSPORTATION, INCORPORATED, c/o Corporation Creation
Network, Inc.,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District
Judge. (1:14-cv-00051-MJG)

Submitted:

December 22, 2015

Decided:

February 16, 2016

Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lawrence A. Katz, COFFEY KAYE MYERS & OLLEY, Bala Cynwyd,
Pennsylvania, for Appellant.
Amy E. Askew, Catherine Mary
Manofsky, KRAMON & GRAHAM, PA, Baltimore, Maryland; Evan M.
Tager, Carl J. Summers, MAYER BROWN LLP, Washington, D.C., for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1757

Doc: 24

Filed: 02/16/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
William M. Conrad appeals from the district court’s order
granting summary judgment to Defendant CSX Transportation, Inc.
(CSX) in Conrad’s suit under the Federal Employers’ Liability
Act (FELA), 45 U.S.C. §§ 51 to 60 (2012).
was

negligent

in

numerous

ways

barrier at a railway yard.

relating

Conrad alleged CSX
to

his

fall

over

a

On appeal, Conrad argues that the

district court erred in determining that he did not present a
prima facie case of negligence.
This

court

reviews

a

Finding no error, we affirm.

district

court’s

grant

of

summary

judgment de novo, “viewing all facts and reasonable inferences
therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.”
Smith v. Gilchrist, 749 F.3d 302, 307 (4th Cir. 2014) (internal
quotation marks omitted).

Summary judgment is appropriate only

when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Seremeth v. Bd. of

Cty. Comm’rs Frederick Cty., 673 F.3d 333, 336 (4th Cir. 2012).
The

relevant

evidence

inquiry

presents

a

on

summary

judgment

sufficient

is

disagreement

“whether
to

the

require

submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one
party must prevail as a matter of law.”
Lobby,

Inc.,,

summary
competent

477

judgment
evidence

U.S.

242,

motion,

251-52

the

sufficient

(1986).

nonmoving
to
2

Anderson v. Liberty

reveal

To

party
the

withstand
must

a

produce

existence

of

a

Appeal: 15-1757

Doc: 24

Filed: 02/16/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

genuine issue of material fact for trial.

Fed. R. Civ. P.

56(c)(1).
We have reviewed the record, briefs, and applicable case
law on this matter.

Our careful review persuades us that the

district court’s ruling was correct.

See Conrad v. CSX Transp.

No. 1:14-cv-00051-MJG (D. Md. filed June 16 & entered June 17,
2015; and filed June 24 & entered June 25, 2015).

We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately

presented

in

the

materials

before

this

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3