Corey Moody v. Danielle Hollandsworth
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:14-cv-00099-MSD-LRL. Copies to all parties and the district court. . [16-1814]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Plaintiff – Appellant,
DANIELLE HOLLANDSWORTH, individually; RANDY GIBSON, individually,
Defendants – Appellees,
THE CITY OF NEWPORT NEWS, VIRGINIA; JAMES D. FOX, in his official
capacity; RICHARD W. MYERS, in his official capacity; RUSSEL TINSLEY,
individually; RYAN NORRIS, individually,
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Newport News. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (4:14-cv-00099-MSD-LRL)
Argued: May 11, 2017
Before WILKINSON, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Decided: May 30, 2017
Pg: 2 of 3
ARGUED: Timothy Gerard Clancy, CLANCY & WALTER, PLLC, Hampton, Virginia,
for Appellant. James Arthur Cales, III, FURNISS, DAVIS, RASHKIND AND
SAUNDERS, P.C., Norfolk, Virginia; Jeff W. Rosen, PENDER & COWARD, P.C.,
Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Michael B. Ware, Adrienne M.
Sakyi, SCHEMPF & WARE, PLLC, Yorktown, Virginia, for Appellant. Lisa Ehrich,
PENDER & COWARD, P.C., Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellee Danielle
Alan Brody Rashkind, FURNISS, DAVIS, RASHKIND AND
SAUNDERS, P.C., Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee Randy Gibson.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 3 of 3
Corey Moody appeals from the district court’s awards of summary judgment to
police officers Danielle Hollandsworth and Randy Gibson, in their individual capacities,
in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil action. See Moody v. City of Newport News, No. 4:14-cv00099 (E.D. Va. June 16, 2016) (the “Opinion”).
Moody was severely injured by
gunshot wounds suffered on December 12, 2012, during a traffic stop and arrest in
Newport News, Virginia. The district court rejected Moody’s excessive force claims
against Hollandsworth and Gibson, and ruled that both officers are entitled to qualified
We have carefully assessed the arguments made by the parties in their briefs and at
oral argument. We have also fully evaluated the record on appeal. Having done so, we
are satisfied to adopt the reasoning and analysis of the district court and to affirm on the
basis of the court’s comprehensive and well-crafted Opinion.
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?