William Conrad v. CSX Transportation, Inc.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1757
WILLIAM M. CONRAD,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
CSX TRANSPORTATION, INCORPORATED, c/o Corporation Creation
Network, Inc.,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District
Judge. (1:14-cv-00051-MJG)
Submitted: December 22, 2015 Decided: February 16, 2016
Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lawrence A. Katz, COFFEY KAYE MYERS & OLLEY, Bala Cynwyd,
Pennsylvania, for Appellant. Amy E. Askew, Catherine Mary
Manofsky, KRAMON & GRAHAM, PA, Baltimore, Maryland; Evan M.
Tager, Carl J. Summers, MAYER BROWN LLP, Washington, D.C., for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William M. Conrad appeals from the district court’s order
granting summary judgment to Defendant CSX Transportation, Inc.
(CSX) in Conrad’s suit under the Federal Employers’ Liability
Act (FELA), 45 U.S.C. §§ 51 to 60 (2012). Conrad alleged CSX
was negligent in numerous ways relating to his fall over a
barrier at a railway yard. On appeal, Conrad argues that the
district court erred in determining that he did not present a
prima facie case of negligence. Finding no error, we affirm.
This court reviews a district court’s grant of summary
judgment de novo, “viewing all facts and reasonable inferences
therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.”
Smith v. Gilchrist, 749 F.3d 302, 307 (4th Cir. 2014) (internal
quotation marks omitted). Summary judgment is appropriate only
when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Seremeth v. Bd. of
Cty. Comm’rs Frederick Cty., 673 F.3d 333, 336 (4th Cir. 2012).
The relevant inquiry on summary judgment 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). To withstand a
summary judgment motion, the nonmoving party must produce
competent evidence sufficient to reveal the existence of a
2
genuine issue of material fact for trial. Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(c)(1).
We have reviewed the record, briefs, and applicable case
law on this matter. Our careful review persuades us that the
district court’s ruling was correct. See Conrad v. CSX Transp.
No. 1:14-cv-00051-MJG (D. Md. filed June 16 & entered June 17,
2015; and filed June 24 & entered June 25, 2015). 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