Phyllis E. Norris v. Excel Industries, Inc

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:14-cv-00029-MFU-RSB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999878006].. [15-2393]

Appeal: 15-2393

Doc: 35

Filed: 07/05/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2393

PHYLLIS E. NORRIS, Administratrix of the Estate of Chester
Cecil Norris,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
EXCEL INDUSTRIES, INC.,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg.
Michael F. Urbanski,
District Judge. (5:14-cv-00029-MFU-RSB)

Submitted:

June 21, 2016

Decided:

July 5, 2016

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John D. Gehlhausen, JOHN GEHLHAUSEN, P.C., Aurora, Colorado;
David M. Kopstein, KOPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, LLC, Searbrook,
Maryland, for Appellant. C. Dewayne Lonas, Matthew J. Hundley,
MORAN REEVES & CONN, PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-2393

Doc: 35

Filed: 07/05/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Phyllis

E.

Norris

appeals

the

district

court’s

order

granting summary judgment in favor of the Appellee on Norris’
negligence claims related to the allegedly defective design and
inadequate

warnings

challenges

on

of

appeal

the

the

Appellee’s

district

product.

court’s

Norris

order

also

denying

her

motion to reconsider the magistrate judge’s order allowing the
Appellee to designate certain documents as confidential under a
previously

entered

protective

order.

We

review

de

novo

a

district court’s order granting summary judgment, viewing facts
in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.

Newport

News Holdings Corp. v. Virtual City Vision, Inc., 650 F.3d 423,
435 (4th Cir. 2011).

Summary judgment should be granted “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.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).

“‘[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 435 (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.
242, 249-50 (1986)).
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court.
(W.D.

Norris v. Excel Indus., Inc., No. 5:14-cv-00029-MFU-RBU
Va.

Oct.

19,

2015).

We
2

dispense

with

oral

argument

Appeal: 15-2393

Doc: 35

Filed: 07/05/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

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