Debra Smith v. Sam's East, Incorporated

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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