Annie Robinson v. Prince George's County, MD , 465 F. App'x 238 ( 2012 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1594
ANNIE ROBINSON; MONICA GAREY,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY, MARYLAND; CORPORAL JENKINS; ALEX
KIM; DEOK LEE,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
Judge. (8:09-cv-00181-PJM)
Submitted: January 31, 2012 Decided: February 13, 2012
Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gregory L. Lattimer, LAW OFFICES OF GREGORY L. LATTIMER, PLLC,
Washington, D.C., for Appellants. Kathleen M. McDonald, KERR
MCDONALD, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland; M. Andree Green, Acting
County Attorney, William A. Snoddy, Deputy County Attorney,
Shelley L. Johnson, Associate County Attorney, Upper Marlboro,
Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Travis Robinson was shot and killed in the parking lot
of J’s Sports Café in Laurel, Maryland. His mother, Annie
Robinson, and Monica Garey, the mother and next friend of
Robinson’s minor children, (collectively, “Appellants”) filed a
lawsuit against Prince George’s County, Maryland, Corporal
Terrace Jenkins, Alex Kim, and Deok Lee (collectively,
“Appellees”). The complaint alleged Survival Act and wrongful
death claims for battery, deprivation of civil rights,
intentional infliction of emotional distress, violation of the
Maryland Constitution, and negligent hiring, training, and
supervision. The district court granted Appellees’ motions for
summary judgment in two separate orders. Appellants appeal
these orders. We affirm.
Appellants argue that the district court erred in
resolving this case on summary judgment. They maintain that,
contrary to the district court’s holding, Kim’s liability was
not discharged in bankruptcy and that Kim and Lee are liable in
their representative capacity as principals of J’s Sports Café.
Appellants also argue that the district court erred when it
declined to permit an amendment of the complaint to add or
substitute D&A Restaurant, LLC, as a defendant. Lastly,
Appellants contend that the district court erred in holding that
2
no reasonable jury could find that Jenkins fired the shot that
fatally injured Robinson.
This court reviews a district court’s grant of summary
judgment de novo. Purdham v. Fairfax Cnty. Sch. Bd., 637 F.3d
421, 426 (4th Cir. 2011). Summary judgment is proper only if
“there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 56(a); see also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477
U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986). Facts must be viewed in the light most
favorable to the non-moving party when there is a genuine
dispute as to those facts. Witt v. W. Va. State Police, 633
F.3d 272, 277 (4th Cir. 2011). For a non-moving party to
present a genuine issue of material fact, “[c]onclusory or
speculative allegations do not suffice, nor does a mere
scintilla of evidence in support of [the non-moving party’s]
case.” Thompson v. Potomac Elec. Power Co., 312 F.3d 645, 649
(4th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Because Appellants’ claims all rely on the conclusion
that Jenkins fatally wounded Robinson, we begin with their
contention that the district court erred in finding no
reasonable jury could reach such a conclusion. Appellants
assert that the district court failed to draw all reasonable
inferences in their favor. They argue that there is no evidence
that Jenkins’ 9mm Beretta was not capable of firing the .38
3
caliber round that fatally wounded Robinson. Appellants further
suggest that a jury could infer that Jenkins shot Robinson with
a second weapon, which he immediately discarded.
“[F]acts must be viewed in the light most favorable to
the nonmoving party only if there is a genuine dispute as to
those facts.” Ricci v. DeStefano, 129 S. Ct. 2658, 2677 (2009)
(internal quotation marks omitted). The nonmovant “must do more
than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the
material facts,” but must come forward with “specific facts
showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Matsushita
Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87
(1986).
The inferences Appellants advance rely heavily on
Charles Hall’s testimony. Hall testified that he was directly
behind Robinson, running towards Jenkins and Robinson’s vehicle,
when Robinson was shot. Hall stated that Jenkins shot Robinson,
that he saw the muzzle flash, and that Jenkins then holstered
his gun.
We agree with the district court that Appellants have
failed to raise a genuine dispute as to whether Jenkins fired
the shot that fatally wounded Robinson. Jenkins’ service weapon
was examined on the scene and it was determined that it had not
been fired recently. Appellants did not present evidence to the
contrary or otherwise challenge this conclusion, but merely
4
speculate that a 9mm Berretta could fire a .38 caliber round.
Appellants’ conjecture that Jenkins may have, unobserved, fired
and discarded a second weapon is similarly without any shred of
evidentiary support. “When opposing parties tell two different
stories, one of which is blatantly contradicted by the record,
so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not
adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a
motion for summary judgment.” Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372,
380 (2007). * Thus, we find no basis to fault the district
court’s grant of summary judgment.
Because Appellants’ claims all depend on the premise
that Jenkins fired the fatal shot, we need not reach Appellants’
remaining arguments. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the
district court. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
*
Appellants attempt to distinguish Harris, upon which the
district court relied. They argued that Harris involved a
videotape that recorded the entire event. We find the lack of
video evidence to be of no moment. The case turns on whether
Jenkins fired the shot that fatally injured Robinson. The
physical evidence conclusively resolves this issue in Jenkins’
favor.
5