Antonya Herring v. Vicki Montgomery
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:14-cv-00738-JAG Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. .. [16-1916]
Pg: 1 of 5
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Plaintiff - Appellant,
VICKI MONTGOMERY, Individually and in her official capacity
as CEO/Director, Central State Hospital,
Defendant - Appellee,
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,
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)
February 28, 2017
March 3, 2017
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, KING, Circuit Judge, and DAVIS,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Pg: 2 of 5
JeRoyd W. Greene, III, ROBINSON AND GREENE, Richmond, Virginia,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 3 of 5
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
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
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)).
Id. at 568 (quoting
“A dispute is genuine if a reasonable
(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
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
Pg: 4 of 5
to determine whether either of the parties deserves judgment as
Transp., 762 F.3d 374, 392 (4th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation
actions were taken by Montgomery’s subordinates.
was required to demonstrate that (1) Montgomery had knowledge
that her subordinates engaged in “conduct that posed a pervasive
inadequate to amount to deliberate indifference, and (3) there
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’
personnel policies at all times, these facts alone cannot show
documenting Herring’s assignment to Ward 8.
In light of the
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.
Thus, the district court
establishing a basis to hold Montgomery personally liable under
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
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?