Raimundo Lugo v. United States ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-2401
RAIMUNDO LUGO,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:11-cv-00416-BO)
Submitted: May 30, 2013 Decided: June 4, 2013
Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Coy E. Brewer, Jr., COY E. BREWER, JR., ATTORNEY AT LAW, PLLC,
Fayetteville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker,
United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Shalika K. Shah,
Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Raimundo Lugo appeals the district court’s order
granting the Government’s motion for summary judgment on his
complaint filed pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28
U.S.C.A. §§ 1346(b)(1), 2671-2680 (West 2006 & Supp. 2012). In
February 2010, Lugo entered the Pines Class Six store, which is
owned and operated by the Army Air Force Exchange Service, and
slipped and fell on a trickle of water coming from underneath
one of the refrigerated coolers. We affirm.
This Court reviews a district court’s grant of summary
judgment de novo, viewing the facts and drawing reasonable
inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.
PBM Prods., LLC v. Mead Johnson & Co., 639 F.3d 111, 119 (4th
Cir. 2011). Summary judgment is proper “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). “Only disputes over facts that might affect the
outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly
preclude the entry of summary judgment.” Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). To withstand a motion
for summary judgment, the non-moving party must produce
competent evidence to reveal the existence of a genuine issue of
material fact for trial. See Thompson v. Potomac Elec. Power
Co., 312 F.3d 645, 649 (4th Cir. 2002) (“Conclusory or
2
speculative allegations do not suffice, nor does a mere
scintilla of evidence in support of [the non-moving party’s]
case.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
On appeal, Lugo asserts that there is a genuine issue
of material fact as to whether the defendant exercised
reasonable care in maintaining the premises. Our review of the
record leads us to conclude that the district court correctly
determined that Lugo’s proffered evidence of negligence did not
rise above speculative allegations. We therefore conclude that
the district court properly granted the Government’s motion for
summary judgment as to Lugo’s claim.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 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