Antonya Herring v. Vicki Montgomery

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:14-cv-00738-JAG Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000034895].. [16-1916]

Appeal: 16-1916

Doc: 27

Filed: 03/03/2017

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1916

ANTONYA HERRING,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
VICKI MONTGOMERY, Individually and in her official capacity
as CEO/Director, Central State Hospital,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
CENTRAL STATE HOSPITAL; BERNADETTE SPRUILL, Individually and
in her official capacity as Head Supervisor, Forensic Unit,
Central State Hospital; S. YARATHRA, M.D., Individually and
in his official capacity as Chief Psychiatrist, Forensic
Unit, Central State Hospital,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
John A. Gibney, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:14-cv-00738-JAG)

Submitted:

February 28, 2017

Decided:

March 3, 2017

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, KING, Circuit Judge, and DAVIS,
Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Appeal: 16-1916

Doc: 27

Filed: 03/03/2017

Pg: 2 of 5

JeRoyd W. Greene, III, ROBINSON AND GREENE, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellant.
Mark R. Herring, Attorney General of Virginia,
Rhodes B. Ritenour, Deputy Attorney General, G. William Norris,
Jr., Gregory C. Fleming, Senior Assistant Attorneys General,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 16-1916

Doc: 27

Filed: 03/03/2017

Pg: 3 of 5

PER CURIAM:
Antonya

O.

Herring

appeals

the

district

court’s

order

granting summary judgment to Vicki Montgomery on her employment
discrimination claim raised pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012).
Finding no error, we affirm.
We “review[] de novo [a] 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

entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)).
jury

could

return

a

and

the

movant

is

Id. at 568 (quoting

“A dispute is genuine if a reasonable

verdict

for

the

(internal quotation marks omitted).

nonmoving

party.”

Id.

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.”
731 F.3d 303, 311 (4th Cir. 2013).

Dash v. Mayweather,

When a “district court’s

grant of summary judgment disposed of cross-motions for summary
judgment, we consider each motion separately on its own merits
3

Appeal: 16-1916

Doc: 27

Filed: 03/03/2017

Pg: 4 of 5

to determine whether either of the parties deserves judgment as
a

matter

of

law.”

Defenders

of

Wildlife

v.

N.C.

Dep’t

of

Transp., 762 F.3d 374, 392 (4th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
Montgomery
employment

did

actions

not
at

take

issue

the

in

allegedly

this

case.

discriminatory
Instead,

actions were taken by Montgomery’s subordinates.

those

Thus, Herring

was required to demonstrate that (1) Montgomery had knowledge
that her subordinates engaged in “conduct that posed a pervasive
and

unreasonable

Montgomery’s

risk

response

of
to

constitutional

the

knowledge

injury,”

was

(2)

sufficiently

inadequate to amount to deliberate indifference, and (3) there
was

a

causal

link

between

constitutional injury.

the

supervisor’s

inaction

and

the

Wilkins v. Montgomery, 751 F.3d 214, 226

(4th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted).
We conclude that Herring failed to raise a genuine dispute
of material fact to hold Montgomery liable for her subordinates’
actions.

While

Herring

regarding

employment

approved,

and

that

does

decisions
Montgomery

proffer
that
did

some

inconsistencies

Montgomery

not

follow

personally
the

written

personnel policies at all times, these facts alone cannot show
that

Montgomery

subordinates.

condoned
Montgomery

any

discriminatory
not

did

intent

personnel

sign

the

documenting Herring’s assignment to Ward 8.
4

of

her
form

In light of the

Appeal: 16-1916

Doc: 27

Filed: 03/03/2017

Pg: 5 of 5

large nursing staff employed by the hospital, it was perfectly
reasonable for Montgomery to delegate to the Director of Nursing
the task of assigning work to nurses.
correctly

held

that

Herring

Thus, the district court

failed

to

proffer

evidence

establishing a basis to hold Montgomery personally liable under
§ 1983.
Accordingly,
dispense

with

contentions

are

we

oral

affirm

the

argument

adequately

district

because

presented

in

court’s

the
the

facts

order.

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

5