Debra Smith v. Sam's East, Incorporated


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cv-00035-JPJ-PMS Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000000059]. [16-1736]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-1736 Doc: 24 Filed: 01/09/2017 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1736 DEBRA R. SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SAM’S EAST, INC., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, District Judge. (1:15-cv-00035-JPJ-PMS) Submitted: December 29, 2016 Decided: January 9, 2017 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mary Lynn Tate, TATE LAW PC, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellant. W. Bradford Stallard, P. Danielle Stone, PENN, STUART & ESKRIDGE, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-1736 Doc: 24 Filed: 01/09/2017 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Debra R. Smith appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Sam’s East, Inc., in her personal injury action. “[W]e 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 and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’” (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)). Id. at 568 “A dispute is genuine if a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). In determining whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, “we view the facts and all justifiable inferences arising therefrom in the light most favorable to (internal quotation party must . rely . . on the marks more nonmoving omitted). than party.” Id. However, conclusory at “the 565 n.1 nonmoving allegations, mere speculation, the building of one inference upon another, or the mere existence of a scintilla of evidence.” Dash v. Mayweather, 731 F.3d 303, 311 (4th Cir. 2013). We have thoroughly reviewed the parties’ briefs and the materials in the joint appendix and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Smith v. Sam’s East, Inc., No. 1:15-cv-00035-JPJ-PMS 2 Appeal: 16-1736 Doc: 24 Filed: 01/09/2017 (W.D. Va. June 7, 2016). Pg: 3 of 3 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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?