George Angelich v. MedTrust ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-2185
GEORGE DAVID ANGELICH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MEDTRUST,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema,
District Judge. (1:13-cv-00042-LMB-TCB)
Submitted: April 22, 2014 Decided: May 13, 2014
Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Carl L. Crews, C. LOWELL CREWS, ATTORNEY AT LAW, PLLC,
Arlington, Virginia, for Appellant. Paul W. Mengel III, Brian
F. Wilbourn, Nichole L. DeVries, PILIEROMAZZA PLLC, Washington,
D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
George David Angelich filed a tort action arising
under Virginia law against his former employer, MedTrust. For
reasons stated from the bench, the district court granted
summary judgment in favor of MedTrust on all claims and denied
Angelich’s motion for a continuance. We affirm.
This court “review[s] the district court’s award of
summary judgment de novo, and consider[s] the evidence and all
inferences fairly drawn from the evidence in the light most
favorable to [the nonmoving party].” Carnell Constr. Corp. v.
Danville Redev. & Hous. Auth., 745 F.3d 703, 716 (4th Cir. Mar.
6, 2014). Summary judgment is appropriate “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.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 56(a). The relevant inquiry is “whether the evidence
presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a
jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail
as a matter of law.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.
242, 251-52 (1986).
Under Virginia law, an at-will employee, such as
Angelich, cannot establish a cause of action for wrongful
discharge unless his termination resulted from the employer’s
violation of public policy. Bowman v. State Bank of Keysville,
331 S.E.2d 797, 801 (Va. 1985). We conclude that Angelich
2
failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact as to
MedTrust’s violation of any such public policy.
Summary judgment was appropriate on the remaining
grounds because Angelich failed to show that MedTrust made a
false statement, see Jordan v. Kollman, 612 S.E.2d 203, 206 (Va.
2002) (“True statements do not support a cause of action for
defamation.”), intentionally interfered with a business
expectancy, see Dunlap v. Cottman Transmission Sys., LLC, 754
S.E.2d 313, 318 (Va. 2014) (providing elements of cause of
action for tortious interference with business expectancy), or
engaged in conduct that was outrageous and intolerable, see
Harris v. Kreutzer, 624 S.E.2d 24, 33 (Va. 2006) (providing
elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress).
Finally, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in denying Angelich’s motion for a continuance.
Accordingly, we affirm. 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