Rheubottom v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 12-2423
    GREGORY RHEUBOTTOM,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY,
    Defendant – Appellee,
    and
    ALSTOM TRANSPORTATION, INC.; IFE NORTH AMERICA,
    Defendants.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Greenbelt.     Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
    Judge. (8:09-cv-00485-PJM)
    Submitted:   April 12, 2013                   Decided:   May 20, 2013
    Before KEENAN, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Douglas K. Allston, Jr., ALLSTON & ASSOCIATES, Greenbelt,
    Maryland, for Appellant.     Mark F. Sullivan, Deputy General
    Counsel, Carol B. O’Keeffe, General Counsel, Gerard J. Stief,
    Senior Associate General Counsel, Nicholas L. Phucas, Assistant
    General Counsel, WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY,
    Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    2
    PER CURIAM:
    In   this     personal      injury    case,        Gregory    Rheubottom
    appeals     the      district        court’s      order     granting        Appellee’s
    supplemental motion for summary judgment.                   On appeal, he argues
    that the district court misunderstood the evidence and erred in
    granting the motion.          We disagree, and affirm the judgment.
    We review whether a district court erred in granting
    summary judgment de novo, applying the same legal standards as
    the district court.            Martin v. Lloyd, 
    700 F.3d 132
    , 135 (4th
    Cir. 2012).        Summary judgment is only appropriate where there is
    no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to
    judgment as a matter of law.              
    Id.
         In determining whether there
    is a genuine issue of material fact, we view the evidence in the
    light most favorable to the nonmoving party.                        
    Id.
         However, a
    nonmoving party cannot defeat summary judgment with merely a
    scintilla of evidence.          American Arms Int’l v. Herbert, 
    563 F.3d 78
    , 82 (4th Cir. 2009).               “Where the record taken as a whole
    could   not    lead     a   rational      trier    of     fact    to   find      for   the
    nonmoving      party,       there    is    no     genuine     issue       for     trial.”
    Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 
    475 U.S. 574
    ,
    587 (1986) (internal quotation marks omitted).
    We   have     reviewed      the   record      and    agree        with   the
    district      court’s       stated     reasons      for     granting        Appellee’s
    supplemental       motion     for    summary      judgment.         Accordingly,       we
    3
    affirm the district court’s order.          See Rheubottom v. Washington
    Metro. Area Transit Auth., No. 8:09-cv-00485-PJM (D. Md. Oct.
    19, 2012).      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
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-2423

Judges: Keenan, Wynn, Diaz

Filed Date: 5/20/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024