Akiel McKnight v. The Pickens Police Department ( 2022 )

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1427 Doc: 25 Filed: 12/16/2022 Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-1427
AKIEL MCKNIGHT,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
THE PICKENS POLICE DEPARTMENT; THE CITY OF PICKENS; TRAVIS RIGGS;
DENNIS HARMON,
Defendants – Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Anderson. Joseph Dawson, III, District Judge. (8:18-cv-03277-JD)
Submitted: October 28, 2022 Decided: December 16, 2022
Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Joshua Thomas Hawkins, Helena LeeAnn Jedziniak, HAWKINS &
JEDZINIAK, LLC, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Charles F. Thompson, Jr.,
Lake Summers, Michael D. Malone, MALONE, THOMPSON, SUMMERS & OTT,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1427 Doc: 25 Filed: 12/16/2022 Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Akiel McKnight appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to
the Pickens Police Department (“Department”), the City of Pickens, Travis Riggs, and
Dennis Harmon, in McKnight’s action for unlawful termination based on his sexual
orientation, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and
South Carolina law. We affirm.
We “review de novo a district court’s grant or denial of a motion for summary
judgment, construing all facts and reasonable inferences therefrom in favor of the
nonmoving party.” Gen. Ins. Co. of Am. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 886 F.3d 346, 353 (4th Cir.
2018). 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). “A genuine dispute of material fact exists ‘if the evidence is such that
a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.’” Reyes v. Waples Mobile
Home Park Ltd. P’ship, 903 F.3d 415, 423 (4th Cir. 2018) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)). “To create a genuine issue for trial, ‘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.’” Humphreys &
Partners Architects, L.P. v. Lessard Design, Inc., 790 F.3d 532, 540 (4th Cir. 2015)
(quoting Dash v. Mayweather, 731 F.3d 303, 311 (4th Cir. 2013)).
Upon review of the parties’ briefs and the record, we find no reversible error in the
district court’s determination that (1) McKnight failed to establish through direct or
circumstantial evidence that his sexual orientation was a motivating factor in the
2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1427 Doc: 25 Filed: 12/16/2022 Pg: 3 of 3
Department’s decision and (2) McKnight failed to establish that the Department’s
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for his termination was a pretext for discrimination.
Accordingly, because there is no genuine dispute of material fact, we affirm the
district court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendants. 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