Debra Bass v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:16-cv-00033-JLK-RSB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000172790].. [17-1431]

Appeal: 17-1431

Doc: 19

Filed: 10/13/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1431

DEBRA BASS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WAL-MART STORES, INC.,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (4:16-cv-00033-JLK-RSB)

Submitted: September 29, 2017

Decided: October 13, 2017

Before KING and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark T. Williams, WILLIAMS, MORRISON, LIGHT AND MOREAU, Danville,
Virginia, for Appellant. Cathleen Kailani Memmer, Victor S. Skaff, III, GLENN
ROBINSON & CATHEY PLC, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 17-1431

Doc: 19

Filed: 10/13/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Debra Bass appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor
of Wal-Mart Stores, 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.’” Id. at 568 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)).
“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 . . . the nonmoving party.” Id. at 565 n.1 (internal quotation
marks omitted). However, “the nonmoving party must rely on more than conclusory
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. Bass v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 4:16-cv-00033-JLK-RSB (W.D. Va.
Mar. 9, 2017).

2

Appeal: 17-1431

Doc: 19

Filed: 10/13/2017

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