GTC Services, LLC v. Region Q Workforce Investment Consortium ( 2016 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1530
GTC SERVICES, LLC,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
REGION Q WORKFORCE INVESTMENT CONSORTIUM; MID-EAST
COMMISSION,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville. James C. Dever III,
Chief District Judge. (4:13-cv-00161-D)
Submitted: June 23, 2016 Decided: June 28, 2016
Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John M. Kirby, LAW OFFICES OF JOHN M. KIRBY, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Bradley O. Wood, WOMBLE CARLYLE
SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
GTC Services, LLC (GTC), appeals from the district court’s
order granting summary judgment to Defendants on GTC’s civil
action alleging a violation of procedural due process rights and
tortious interference with a contract when the Region Q
Workforce Investment Consortium Board chose not to award a
future contract to GTC to provide youth workforce development
services. Finding no error, we affirm.
We review a district court’s decision to grant summary
judgment de novo. Jacobs v. N.C. Admin. Office of the Courts,
780 F.3d 562, 565 n.1 (4th Cir. 2015). “A district court ‘shall
grant summary judgment 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.’” Id. at 568 (quoting
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)). In determining whether a genuine
dispute as to any material fact exists, we “view the facts and
all justifiable inferences arising therefrom in the light most
favorable to . . . the nonmoving party.” Id. at 565 n.1
(citation and quotation marks omitted). However, “[c]onclusory
or speculative allegations do not suffice, nor does a mere
scintilla of evidence in support of [the nonmoving party’s]
case.” Thompson v. Potomac Elec. Power Co., 312 F.3d 645, 649
(4th Cir. 2002) (citation and quotation marks omitted).
2
We have carefully reviewed the briefs, the joint appendix,
and the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. GTC
Servs., LLC v. Region Q Workforce Inv. Consortium, No.
4:13-cv-00161-D (E.D.N.C. Apr. 14, 2015). We deny the
Appellees’ motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute. 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