Brett Davis v. City of Greensboro

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:12-cv-00888-CCE-JEP Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999899182].. [15-2095, 15-2096, 15-2097, 15-2098]

Appeal: 15-2095

Doc: 32

Filed: 07/28/2016

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2095

BRETT DAVIS; BRIAN CHRIS SMOOT; STEVE SZYMECZEK,
Plaintiffs – Appellants,
v.
CITY OF GREENSBORO, North Carolina,
Defendant - Appellee.

No. 15-2096

WENDY CHEEK; BRIAN KEITH COLLINS; JOSEPH CASEY COUNCILMAN;
WALTER STEVEN COUTURIER; TIMOTHY FIELDS; WILLIAM C. MORGAN,
Plaintiffs – Appellants,
v.
CITY OF GREENSBORO, NORTH CAROLINA,
Defendant - Appellee.

No. 16-2097

MICHAEL BROWNELL; TRAYVEAWN GOODWIN; CHRISTIAN
JENKS; PATRICK KENNEDY; GEORGE SIMMONS,
Plaintiffs – Appellants,
v.

HICKS;

TY

Appeal: 15-2095

Doc: 32

Filed: 07/28/2016

Pg: 2 of 4

CITY OF GREENSBORO, NORTH CAROLINA,
Defendant - Appellee.

No. 16-2098

DAVID MORGAN; ROGERS REYNOLDS,
Plaintiffs – Appellants,
v.
CITY OF GREENSBORO, NORTH CAROLINA,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge.
(1:12-cv-00888-CCE-JEP; 1:12-cv-00981-CCE-JEP;
1:12-cv-01311-CCE-JEP; 1:12-cv-01110-CCE-JEP)

Submitted:

June 27, 2016

Decided:

July 28, 2016

Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William L. Hill, Torin L. Fury, FRAZIER HILL & FURY, RLLP,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellants. Kenneth Kyre, Jr.,
Danielle N. Godfrey, PINTO COATES KYRE & BOWERS, PLLC,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 15-2095

Doc: 32

Filed: 07/28/2016

Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:
The

Appellants,

current

and

retired

police

officers

and

firefighters for the City of Greensboro, appeal the district
court’s orders granting summary judgment in favor of the City on
the

Appellants’

claims

related

to

the

City’s

reduction

and

termination of a longevity pay program and the City’s failure to
provide

retirement

police officers.
granting

to

for

off-duty

work

performed

by

We review de novo a district court’s order

summary

favorable

benefits

the

judgment,
nonmoving

viewing
party.

facts

in

Newport

the

light

News

most

Holdings

Corp. v. Virtual City Vision, Inc., 650 F.3d 423, 434 (4th Cir.
2011).

A court must grant summary judgment “if the movant shows

that 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.

“‘[T]here is no issue for trial unless there is

sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a jury to
return a verdict for that party.’”

Newport News, 650 F.3d at

434 (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249
(1986)).
We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that
the district court did not err in granting summary judgment for
the City on the claims challenged on appeal.
affirm

the

district

court’s

orders.

We

Accordingly, we

dispense

with

oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
3

Appeal: 15-2095

Doc: 32

Filed: 07/28/2016

Pg: 4 of 4

presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid in the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

4