Bagley v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-1330
JOYCE F. BAGLEY,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
KONE, INCORPORATED,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:07-
cv-00893-RWT)
Submitted: April 22, 2010 Decided: May 13, 2010
Before MOTZ and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Patrick J. Christmas, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Appellant.
Gerard J. Stief, Senior Associate General Counsel, Carol B.
O’Keeffe, General Counsel, Mark F. Sullivan, Deputy General
Counsel, Michael K. Guss, Assistant General Counsel, WASHINGTON
METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Washington, D.C., for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Joyce F. Bagley appeals the district court’s order
striking the testimony of her expert, granting Appellee
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (“WMATA”)’s
motion for reconsideration, and granting summary judgment to
WMATA in Bagley’s negligence action arising from a trip and fall
incident at the Foggy Bottom Metrorail station in Washington,
D.C. Bagley argues that the district court erred in granting
summary judgment to WMATA. Finding no error, we affirm.
We review de novo the district court’s adverse grant
of summary judgment and construe the facts in the light most
favorable to Bagley, the non-moving party. Rowzie v. Allstate
Ins. Co., 556 F.3d 165, 167 (4th Cir. 2009). Summary judgment
may be granted only when “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(c)(2). To survive summary
judgment, Bagley was required to “produce evidence from which a
reasonable juror may conclude [not only] that a certain hazard
caused the injury [but also] that [WMATA] had actual or
constructive notice of that hazard.” Mixon v. Washington Metro.
Area Transit Auth., 959 A.2d 55, 58 (D.C. 2008) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
We have reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs
and conclude that summary judgment for WMATA was proper in light
3
of the lack of evidence that WMATA had either actual or
constructive notice of a defective condition in the station
causing Bagley’s injuries. 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
4